whodb_platform_dataset_rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are capped by both the requested limit and the MCP --max-rows setting, and per-call workspace targeting does not change session defaults. That is real added context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence carries the two operational facts. Tight and appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 read-only preview tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, result capping and targeting scope. It does not describe the row shape returned, but 'preview rows' plus the 100% schema coverage makes that a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining the cap interaction between limit and --max-rows and clarifying that workspace is a one-call override that leaves defaults intact, which the schema's wording only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Preview rows for one hosted dataset.' An agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like whodb_platform_source_rows or whodb_platform_ontology_rows, which are the likely confusions for a rows-preview tool.

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 workspace sentence gives implied usage (omit to use session default, pass per-call to target a specific host/org/project). But there is no when-to-use vs alternative guidance, and no mention of when to prefer this over the source_rows or ontology_rows siblings. Usage is inferred, not directed.

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