aleph_get_collection

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful expectations about what the returned metadata contains, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with the key content front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation.

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 simple read-only call with one required parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not specify error behavior or where to find the ID, but those are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'collection_id' is self-documented as 'Collection (dataset) ID.' The description adds the 'dataset' synonym but does not need to elaborate further; 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'one dataset' and specifies the exact content returned: publisher, source URL, coverage, update frequency, and entity-type breakdown. This makes it easy to distinguish from entity-search or collection-listing siblings even without reading their schemas.

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 a concrete usage rule: use it to judge source trustworthiness and currency. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops slightly short of a 5.

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