swiss_health_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-type operation, but the description doesn't state this, doesn't mention whether an API key is needed (note sibling swiss_set_api_key exists), whether network/rate limits apply, or what happens on invalid/unknown slugs. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a gap.

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?

Single sentence, zero filler, states purpose and key qualifier (by slug) efficiently. Nothing wasted.

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 retrieval tool, the description is fairly complete, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could add context about the return format (structure of download URLs and metadata), authorization requirements, or error behavior on unknown slugs. The sibling tool list reveals this is part of a broader Swiss data suite where setup/API-key tooling exists, suggesting auth context could matter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter dataset_slug is clearly described with a concrete example ('covid-19-schweiz'). The description reinforces that it's the slug from opendata.swiss. With only one well-documented parameter, the schema already does heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the explicit example in schema bumps it slightly.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get direct download URLs and metadata for a specific BAG health dataset by its slug.' It clearly identifies what is retrieved and how the dataset is identified. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling swiss_health_search_datasets, but 'by slug' implies searching by slug vs searching generally, providing implicit differentiation.

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 context: it's for retrieving a specific dataset when you already know its slug, complementing the search tool (swiss_health_search_datasets). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs the search variant, nor mention any prerequisite like having the slug from a prior search.

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