get_dataset_variables

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a pure lookup, and the description reinforces this by describing a read-only variable listing with its returned field set. It also discloses the important scope constraint (SDTM/SEND/CDASH only, not ADaM). It does not discuss the slimmed-vs-raw payload tradeoff or response size, but the schema's `raw` parameter already documents that difference.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by sibling routing, scope limit, and a concrete example — each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the name or schema. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place by previewing the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned (name, label, core attributes, role). For a 4-parameter read-only lookup it covers purpose, scope, alternatives, and return content — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the worked example (standard='sdtmig', version='3-4', dataset='DM') adds real value by demonstrating which standard/version/dataset combination is valid and clarifying the dashed version format in context. It does not add anything about the `raw` flag beyond the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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 verb+resource: retrieve the complete variable list for a given dataset, and enumerates what each entry contains (name, label, core attributes Req/Exp/Perm, role). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_dataset (dataset-level metadata) and from get_datastructure/get_datastructure_variables (ADaM variables). An agent can differentiate it from all 20 siblings from the text alone.

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?

Explicitly declares itself the preferred tool for pulling all variable definitions of a domain, names the alternative for dataset metadata (get_dataset), and gives a hard exclusion with the redirect for ADaM (e.g. ADSL → get_datastructure or get_datastructure_variables). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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