get_dataset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve detailed information' without stating whether it is a read-only operation, what specific fields are returned, whether it can fail due to permissions, or any rate limits. The vagueness of 'detailed' leaves the agent uncertain about the response structure.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and object, and every word earns its place. There is no unnecessary information.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks essential context about what 'detailed information' includes. It does not hint at the return payload shape (e.g., metadata, status, logs), which could be inferred from sibling tools like get_customer_detail, but is not made explicit. The absence of output schema and annotations increases the need for a richer description.

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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter (dataset_id) with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra insight into formats, constraints, or relationships.

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 the action ('Retrieve detailed information') and the resource ('a specific dataset'), which distinguishes it from list_datasets that lists multiple datasets. It is concise and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the word 'specific', which is sufficient for a get-by-id tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_datasets or get_customer_detail. It does not state that it is for retrieving a single dataset by ID, nor does it mention any context such as 'use this when you need full details of a particular dataset'. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given.

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