dataproduct_request_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an access request, that access may be auto-granted or reviewed by the owner, and that the response includes access details. This goes beyond simple 'requests access' without contradicting any 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief process note, a clean Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, process, all parameters, and return structure. With an output schema present and no nested objects, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could possibly mention prerequisites or failure modes, but none are critical for this action.

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 0%, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains all three parameters in plain terms and adds extra guidance for the purpose parameter ('Use a high-level description of why you need this data.'), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 'Request access' with a clear resource ('output port of a data product') and adds context about the access review process. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read-only tools like search, get, and query.

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 clearly states this tool is for requesting access to a data product output port, which makes the use case obvious. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context alone is strong enough to guide an agent.

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