get_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (page with offset, response says how many rows were withheld), and what it returns (field list, page of rows, total count, licence). It does not mention auth or side effects, but for a read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value—distinguishing tool, explaining scope, and outlining return/pagination. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure; it still summarizes key outputs. It covers usage guidance, pagination, scope, and how it differs from related tools. The description fully addresses what an agent needs to know, given the moderate parameter complexity.

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 coverage is 50% (limit and offset lack descriptions). The description explains the offset-based pagination and that the response reports withheld rows, giving some meaning to limit/offset. It does not explicitly describe each parameter, and the provider semantics are already in the schema. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Read the columns and rows') on a specific resource ('raw dataset'), and explicitly contrasts with get_series ('use get_series for national indicators and this for city datasets'), distinguishing it from siblings. This is a clear, actionable purpose.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use get_series for national indicators and this for city datasets' and mentions the prerequisite 'found via search_datasets'. This clearly directs the agent to the correct tool among siblings.

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