get_dataset

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 by structured data. The description adds a useful format constraint ('dataset_id must not include the project prefix') but says nothing about behavior on a missing dataset, permission requirements for cross-project access, or how the openWorldHint manifests.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the return-field summary comes first and the parameter constraint follows. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover the risk profile. However, with two undocumented parameters and no note on behavior when the dataset is absent or inaccessible, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently across accounts and projects.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies one of three parameters: the dataset_id must omit the project prefix. The 'account' and 'project_id' parameters are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a cross-project BigQuery lookup.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dataset') and names the returned fields (location, description, labels), which separates it from siblings like list_datasets and get_table. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource and return scope make the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_datasets, get_table, or preview_table, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The only guidance-like content is the dataset_id format constraint, which is a parameter rule rather than a when-to-use signal.

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