estimate_bag_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the internal process (same FK path traversal as a bag download, querying snapshot catalog) and details the return structure. It implies a read-only operation without explicitly stating side effects, but the 'preview' context makes the behavior clear.

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 well-structured and efficient: a succinct purpose statement, a brief behavior explanation, then organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool includes an output schema, but the description still provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, how it works, parameter details, and the expected return structure. For a read-only estimation tool, this is comprehensive and leaves no critical gaps.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role and optionality: dataset_rid as the target dataset, version with an example format, and exclude_tables as an optional exclusion list for FK traversal. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the size of a dataset bag before downloading.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bag_info or clone_catalog, and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 clear context: 'Use this to preview what a download will contain and how large it will be before committing to the full download.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is evident and sufficient for an agent.

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