get_e_stat_ref_dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions that omitting the dataset ID yields a list, but this contradicts the schema's required parameter. Additionally, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any details about the response structure beyond 'response text from the E-Stat API.'

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 moderately sized but includes redundant bilingual content (English and Japanese) that adds length without much new information. The Args/Returns structure is clear, but the Japanese section could be condensed to improve conciseness for an English-speaking agent.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and edge cases. It only says the return is a string of response text from the E-Stat API, omitting details on response structure, error handling, or the conflict between the optional dataset ID behavior and the required schema field. This leaves the tool inadequately specified.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter, but it only states 'The ID of the dataset to retrieve' and provides a Japanese translation. It implies the dataset ID is optional in one scenario while the schema marks it required, creating confusion. It does not explain where to obtain the ID or expected format.

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 a reference dataset from the E-Stat API and explains its function (referring to registered dataset filtering conditions). It also distinguishes that omitting the dataset ID returns a list of available datasets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_e_stat_data_catalog or search_e_stat_tables.

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 provides a usage scenario: if the dataset ID is not specified, a list of datasets available to the user can be referenced. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as search_e_stat_tables or get_e_stat_data_catalog, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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