describe_dataset

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond a vague phrase ('agent-friendly orientation') and does not disclose what the summary contains, how it is returned, or any limitations. With the readOnlyHint covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add meaningful behavioral detail.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness without substance is not valuable here; it is too terse to be helpful.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and only readOnlyHint as an annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the summary includes, how to choose between sheet/table, or what the output will look like, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 of explaining the six parameters. It does not mention any parameter (filepath, header_row, sheet_name, table_name, sample_rows, read_boundary_mode) or clarify their roles, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('worksheet or native Excel table') with a clear intended use ('for agent-friendly orientation'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like describe_sheet_layout or profile_workbook, which also summarize structures.

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?

No information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how it differs from the many other read/orientation tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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