fcsc_get_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'full metadata' scope hint and says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or about auth requirements, so it does not go meaningfully beyond the structured data.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Nothing to trim and the scope qualifier is in the right place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; a one-line description is nearly sufficient for a single-arg read tool. The remaining gap is the missing disambiguation from fcsc_search_dataset, which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented ('CKAN dataset id or slug'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether slug lookup is case-sensitive or how ambiguous ids are resolved.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full metadata for a specific FCSC dataset'), and the word 'specific' plus the required dataset_id signals single-record retrieval. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling fcsc_search_dataset.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific ... dataset' suggests this is for when you already know the dataset id, versus browsing or querying. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no pointer to fcsc_search_dataset for discovery.

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