compare_datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only that it compares metadata. It does not disclose potential caching, error behavior, or limitations beyond the example. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences: first explains the purpose, second details the parameter with example and constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but inferred), the description is fairly complete for a comparison tool. It could clarify what 'metadata' includes, but overall sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds crucial details: required prefix format (e.g., 'toronto:abc'), example values, and an explicit range of 2-5 IDs. This compensates well for the schema's lack of semantic hints.

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 'Compare metadata side-by-side for multiple datasets (can be cross-portal),' which clearly identifies the action (compare) and resource (datasets). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dataset_info by emphasizing multiple datasets and cross-portal capability.

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 for comparing 2-5 datasets, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like find_related_datasets or get_dataset_info. No when-not-to-use or exclusions provided.

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