Blv Get Dataset Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful content context by naming what comes back (concrete download URLs, formats, open-data licence), which goes beyond what the annotations convey, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies purpose, workflow placement, and return-content expectations. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on identifier format expectations from the list tool would fully close the loop.

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 as a CKAN slug sourced from blv_list_datasets. The description's 'specific BLV dataset' phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (retrieves detailed metadata and resource URLs for a specific BLV dataset) and explicitly names the sibling blv_list_datasets as the discovery path. An agent can distinguish it from the other blv_* tools without opening the schema.

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 'Use case' line explicitly frames the tool as the follow-up to blv_list_datasets for obtaining download URLs, formats, and licence. It clearly conveys when to reach for it, though it does not spell out when-not to use it or name any competing alternative.

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