nhgis_get_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it describes the kind of data returned, but it does not disclose potential errors, required permissions, or response formatting. This is adequate but not rich for a getter.

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 a single sentence that states the action, resource, and key content areas without any fluff or repetition. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid idea of what will be returned ('data tables, geographic levels, breakdown values, and years'). The lack of an output schema means the description partially compensates by listing content categories, though it does not describe response structure.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with a clear description and examples for 'dataset' (e.g., '2000_SF1a'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond labeling it as a 'specific' dataset, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 tool's action ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific NHGIS dataset'), and enumerates the scope of details returned ('data tables, geographic levels, breakdown values, and years'). This distinguishes it from siblings like nhgis_list_datasets (listing all datasets) and nhgis_get_data_table (getting a specific table).

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 phrase 'for a specific NHGIS dataset' implies the tool is used when you already have a dataset identifier, contrasting with list/search siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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