zurich_analyze_datasets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about analyzing update frequency and field schemas but does not contradict annotations or reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 relatively concise with three sentences, a short emphasis line, and a 'Returns:' section. It could be more structured but is free of fluff and gets the point across efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present (though not shown), the description adequately summarizes the return as a comprehensive analysis report. However, given the tool's complexity and multiple parameters, more detail about the output structure would be helpful.

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?

Despite a reported 0% schema description coverage, the description references concepts like 'Aktualität' and 'Struktur' which loosely align with the boolean parameters include_freshness and include_structure. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or add meaningful detail beyond the parameter names.

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 it analyzes datasets for relevance, timeliness, and data structure, using a specific verb ('analysiert') and resource ('Datensätze'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `zurich_search_datasets` by emphasizing comprehensive analysis.

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 explains it combines search with analysis of update frequency and field schemas, and recommends use for discovering data availability and completeness. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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