list_dataset_fields

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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description need not restate safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned field metadata (name, type, description) and the prerequisite relationship to search_dataset. It does not discuss pagination or failure behavior, but these are minor for a small enumeration tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite, then presents supported dataset IDs in a compact bullet list. Every sentence and bullet earns its place without unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, sequencing, return content, and the full set of valid dataset_id values. No relevant invocation detail is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully documents the single dataset_id parameter by listing every allowed enum value with a human-readable meaning. This goes beyond the raw enum and tells the agent exactly what each ID represents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the filterable fields of a searchable dataset.' It also names the sibling tool search_dataset and explains the distinct role of this tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this before search_dataset to learn which field names and types you can filter on.' This gives a clear sequencing rule and names the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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