describe_dataset

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds a crucial behavioral detail beyond those: the tool is non-functional and returns error code 'unsupported' (E6, E7). This does not contradict the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and directly states the critical unsupported behavior, making every sentence earn 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?

The unsupported status and presence of an output schema cover important ground, but the description omits parameter semantics and does not suggest an alternative tool. For a tool with two required parameters and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'native accession' and never explains the 'source' or 'accession' parameters. An agent cannot determine what values to provide for these required fields.

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 clear action ('Describe') and target ('study/dataset by native accession, with linked entities'), which distinguishes it from search/list siblings by indicating an accession-based lookup. However, 'native accession' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what source and accession mean.

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 explicitly warns that the tool is not implemented in this build and will return an 'unsupported' error, which is a clear when-not-to-use signal. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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