Get third-party API info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return field details but no additional behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes a practical workflow in a clear list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is defined. The description adds the workflow and lists return fields. It doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only metadata tool with strong annotations, this is complete enough.

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?

There is only one parameter (dataservice_id) with a string type, and the tool's purpose makes it clear that this identifies the dataservice. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter's meaning is obvious from context. The description does not explicitly define the parameter, but the simplicity warrants a high score.

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 detailed metadata about a specific third-party API (dataservice) and lists the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_dataservices (search) and get_dataservice_openapi_spec (which fetches the spec) by naming the workflow.

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 explicitly provides a step-by-step workflow: get info, fetch OpenAPI spec, then call the API. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (first step) and names the next tool (get_dataservice_openapi_spec), making the usage context unambiguous.

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