crehq_purchased_dataset_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the response fields (snapshot_as_of, hosted_access_until, artifact basis, row results) and the expiration behavior (returns an upgrade/update-plan message while acknowledging ownership). This goes beyond basic read/write hints, though it does not describe pagination or error handling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: ownership, snapshot nature, expiration behavior, and high-level response contents. It does not explicitly state whether a dataset or purchase_id is required, but the schema descriptions for those params implicitly cover it. Overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It only contextualizes the purchase relationship, not how parameters combine or interact.

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 a specific action (Query rows) and a specific resource (purchased dataset snapshot). It distinguishes this from live CREHQ refresh, and lists response fields, making the tool's purpose 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?

It explicitly states this is for buyer-owned point-in-time snapshots, not live CREHQ refresh, implying when to use it. It also references the prerequisite purchase_id from a sibling tool. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for live data or provide explicit 'when not to use' scenarios beyond the live refresh contrast.

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