find_related_datasets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context: it searches only within the same portal and uses shared tags and organization as criteria. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, giving the agent a clear understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise: three sentences total. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds the scope constraint, and the last two lines document parameters. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded. This is an optimal structure for tool descriptions.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essentials: purpose, scope, and parameter details. However, it could hint at error handling or edge cases (e.g., no related datasets found). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for safe usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics: dataset_id is described as 'Prefixed dataset ID (e.g. "toronto:ttc-ridership") or bare ID', and limit as 'Max related datasets to return'. However, it does not elaborate on bare ID format or default limit behavior, so it adds value but is not exhaustive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find datasets related to a given dataset by shared tags and organization.' This provides a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('datasets related to a given dataset'), with a clear method ('shared tags and organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_datasets (general search) and get_dataset_info (single dataset info) by specifying the relational and scoped nature.

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 includes a critical usage guideline: 'Searches within the same portal as the source dataset only.' This implies when to use (within-portal) and hints at when not to (cross-portal). While it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context from sibling tools suggests appropriate use cases, making the guideline clear and helpful.

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