Get dataset

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds useful context by stating that the response includes version lineage, but it does not disclose rate limits, authorization requirements, or response shape. Overall it supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Get a dataset'), then specifies the scope ('version lineage') and input keys ('by organization and slug') in a natural order.

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 lookup tool with two self-descriptive parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It names the return scope ('dataset and its version lineage') and the required identifiers. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the tool has no output schema and this omission is not blocking.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the parameter names org_slug and dataset_slug are self-explanatory. The description's phrase 'by organization and slug' maps onto the parameters and communicates that they form the identity of the dataset, so basic semantics are clear. No deeper format or behavioral detail is added beyond the names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a dataset and its version lineage') and specifies the lookup keys ('by organization and slug'). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like scorestudio_list_datasets, which would return a collection rather than an individual dataset.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. However, the description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single dataset by org and slug, leaving the choice versus list_datasets implicit but reasonably inferable.

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