datos_get_dataset

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context about what metadata is returned (resources, format, URL), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return value, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted verbiage.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata retrieval tool with good annotations and a single parameter, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it in relation to sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does specify what information will be returned ('recursos, formato, URL').

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Metadata completa de un dataset') and resource ('del INE'), with explicit mention of what information is returned ('recursos, formato, URL'). It distinguishes from sibling 'datos_search_datasets' by specifying this tool is for getting metadata of a specific dataset rather than searching for datasets.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Usa datos_search_datasets primero para encontrar el ID'), naming the specific alternative tool and explaining the prerequisite workflow. This gives clear context about the relationship between these two sibling tools.

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