get_datastructure_variables

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the negative behavior that matters most: this endpoint omits core and data types, so an agent that needs them is redirected. It also advertises token efficiency and the hrefTemplate field. It does not describe pagination or the exact response shape, which keeps it just short of a 5 given there is no output schema.

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 purpose and the token-saving claim are front-loaded, with the exclusion note and example following. Three sentences plus an example, all earning their place, though the 'most token-efficient' phrasing slightly overlaps the raw-flag documentation in the schema.

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?

Read-only list tool with 4 fully documented parameters and no output schema; the description still names the returned fields and, critically, states what is not returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or to pick a sibling 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a concrete worked example (standard='adamig', version='latest', datastructure='ADSL') that shows how the parameters combine in practice. It does not add semantics for the raw flag, but that is fully documented in the schema.

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 — returning the variable-name list (names + labels, plus hrefTemplate) for an analysis data structure — and explicitly differentiates itself from get_datastructure (full table) and get_datastructure_variable (single variable). An agent can distinguish it from the nearest siblings 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?

Explicit routing is given: use this for the cheapest exhaustive name list, use get_datastructure when core and data types are needed, use get_datastructure_variable for a single variable's definition. The schema's datastructure field also tells the agent to call get_datastructures first when the name is unknown. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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