nomis_get_dataset

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. It explains that the tool returns name, description, and dimensions with conceptref, and notes that every dataset has geography and time dimensions. However, it does not disclose that the tool is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The addition that conceptref is used in nomis_get_data is useful but not comprehensive.

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 brief (two paragraphs) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph provides examples and a link to another tool. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by combining the two paragraphs into one or adding more whitespace for readability. No redundancy or tautology.

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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (as indicated in context signals), the description is relatively complete. It explains what the tool returns and provides an essential relationship to nomis_get_data. It does not detail the output schema structure, but that is not required since an output schema is available. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has only one parameter (dataset_id) with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that dataset_id is a Nomis table id like NM_1_1 or NM_2021_1, and that it is used to get the overview. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify additional constraints like required format (e.g., string length) or list valid values.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an overview and dimensions of a Nomis dataset, specifying the resource and output. It provides examples of dataset_id (NM_1_1, NM_2021_1) and distinguishes from the sibling nomis_get_data by noting the conceptref link. However, it could be more explicit about being a metadata retrieval tool to differentiate further from get_dataset.

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 implies usage by showing the dataset_id format and connecting to nomis_get_data via conceptref. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_dataset or list_datasets. The context of siblings suggests differentiation is needed, but the description does not provide exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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