dataset_coverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at an unpublished-months caveat. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what 'publisher gates' means operationally, or what the return behavior is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. The key caution is not front-loaded with enough context to make the sentence actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits what the tool returns, how year and family affect coverage, and how to interpret unpublished months.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters, year and family, and the description does not mention either one. The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters filter or how defaults should be interpreted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not state a clear verb and resource; 'Inventory and publisher gates' is cryptic, and 'never treat unpublished months as zero' is a warning rather than a purpose statement. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as dataset_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The unpublished-months caution is useful but does not tell the agent what conditions select dataset_coverage over dataset_info or other siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.