datagov_dataset_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the return content (title, resources, tags, etc.) but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as error handling or whether 'full metadata' includes all possible fields. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries useful information. It is concise without being terse.

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?

With only one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description adequately covers return values by enumerating the major metadata fields. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response 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 already describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Dataset name (slug) or UUID' with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the 'by name (slug) or UUID' form, adding no new semantic detail beyond confirming the identifier can be either type.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('full metadata for a Data.gov dataset') and identifies the input as a name (slug) or UUID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like datagov_search_datasets, which searches rather than fetches details.

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 by specifying the identifier types ('by name (slug) or UUID'), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use datagov_search_datasets to find datasets first) or state when not to use this tool.

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