togoid_getDescription

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (dictionary keyed by dataset name) and content (names, descriptions in English and Japanese, organization info), which is transparent for a read-only retrieval tool. No destructive behavior is indicated.

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, using three short paragraphs that front-load the primary purpose. The first sentence immediately states what the tool does. Subsequent sentences add return details and use case without redundancy. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (dictionary with description metadata) and its utility. For a simple retrieval tool, this is complete and leaves no gaps for the agent to guess.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return value structure but does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. Schema coverage is 100% as there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'human-readable descriptions', and the scope 'all databases in TogoID'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_databases' which lists names, and 'togoid_getDataset' which returns dataset metadata, by focusing on detailed descriptions including English and Japanese texts.

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 clear use case: 'useful for understanding what each database contains when planning cross-database queries'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other purposes, though the context of sibling tools implies such distinctions.

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