Get dataset info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is added context. It does that with a genuine scope disclaimer — 'PlushSource does not audit or certify manufacturers' — which tells the agent how to frame the data and avoid implying endorsement. That is behavior beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Three short sentences: return contents first, then the one actionable conditional, then the disclaimer. Front-loaded and free of filler; the disclaimer slightly trails but still earns its 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the return fields and adds a caveat about data provenance. For a zero-argument metadata tool this is close to complete; only the relationship to sibling lookup tools is left implicit.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the schema imposes nothing and the baseline applies; no parameter discussion is needed or missing.

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?

Names a specific verb (return) and enumerates exactly what comes back: snapshot date, record count, licence, and links to PlushSource, the open dataset, and listing criteria. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the manufacturer-centric siblings, though it never explicitly says it is the dataset-level metadata tool in contrast to them.

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?

Gives one concrete conditional: 'Use the criteria link when you need to explain what gets listed.' One use case is spelled out, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus search_manufacturers, get_facets, or compare_manufacturers, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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