get_dataset_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool retrieves information and lists returned metadata, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, response size, or data freshness, which are moderately important for a data retrieval tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing return fields. Every word is meaningful; no filler or repetition. It is optimally concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of metadata returned (title, description, languages, date, links). This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the return value. However, it could be improved by noting the response format or mentioning that the tool only works with BFS datasets specifically.

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 covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds limited value by mentioning 'using its BFS number or asset number' but does not enhance semantic understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific BFS dataset' using either a BFS number or asset number. It lists the type of metadata returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_dataset_metadata or get_dataset_dimensions, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools such as get_dataset_dimensions or search_datasets. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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