dataset_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds useful context: the lookup is 'registry-backed' (data provenance) and 'local snapshot freshness evidence' is included 'when available' — a valuable caveat that the freshness field may be absent. However, it does not explain what 'health' means, error behavior for unknown IDs, or what the response contains beyond freshness. It partially discloses behavior but leaves meaning gaps.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('health lookup by dataset_id'), then appends the one extra behavioral detail worth knowing (freshness evidence when available). There is zero waste and every word earns its place. The 'Exact' qualifier and 'registry-backed' provenance both add signal without padding.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere and the description need not explain them. The description covers the lookup purpose, the data source, and the freshness caveat. The only real gap is usage differentiation — it does not clarify when to prefer this over dataset_metadata — which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents dataset_id with examples, and the description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond restating its use. The description mentions dataset_id only in the opening clause, adding no format, constraints, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('lookup'), a precise resource ('registry-backed health'), and the identifying key ('dataset_id'). 'Health' is clearly distinct from the sibling tools — metadata, preview, download, query, and search — so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas. The 'Exact' qualifier reinforces that it is not a fuzzy search.

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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving health status by a canonical registry dataset_id, and 'Exact' hints it is not for fuzzy lookups (contrast search_datasets). However, it never names alternative tools or states when-not to use it — for example, it does not clarify how it differs from dataset_metadata, which is a plausible alternative an agent might confuse it with.

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