get_opendata_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by naming the payload an agent will receive (publisher, description, keywords, short resource summary), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for an unknown id, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the identity/scope first, the returned content second, and the sibling routing last. Every sentence contributes and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 single-parameter, idempotent read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, identifier forms, return contents, and the escape hatch to a sibling. The only gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor at this 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies an example (weather-station-klosters). The description's "catalogue name or UUID" adds a modest clarification of accepted identifier forms, but nothing about format constraints or failure on a malformed id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Get metadata for one opendata.swiss dataset" — plus the accepted identifier forms (catalogue name or UUID). It also draws a boundary against a sibling, so an agent can separate it from list_opendata_resources without opening a schema.

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 closing sentence routes the agent explicitly to list_opendata_resources when the full download list is needed, which is a real when-to-use alternative. It does not address the relation to search_opendata (presumably the step that produces a dataset_id), so usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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