dataset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or whether any side effects occur.

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 short and front-loaded, with one sentence explaining the tool's purpose and one argument definition. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter metadata lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the essential input semantics. It could be improved with an explicit read-only note or usage pointer, but the simplicity of the tool makes the current text largely sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining `dataset_key` as a GBIF-dataset UUID and indicating it can come from `per_dataset` or an observation. This adds format and provenance context beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 that the tool provides provenance metadata—origin, publisher, license, DOI, and citation—for a GBIF dataset. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the resource and content are specific enough to distinguish it from observation, species, and area-related sibling tools.

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 parenthetical '(uit `per_dataset` of een waarneming)' helps explain where the dataset key comes from, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied through the clear purpose rather than stated directly.

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