Socrata Dataset Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the data source ('per-portal Socrata views API'), giving an example portal, and noting 'no auth required'. This provides operational transparency without contradicting any annotations.

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 two crisp sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and return contents; the second sentence adds the prerequisite workflow and data source. No filler or redundant phrasing exists — every clause contributes useful information.

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 read-only detail tool, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to obtain the required identifiers, the underlying API source, an example portal, and authentication requirements. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already defined elsewhere. The only minor gap is the slight tool-name mismatch, which doesn't undermine overall completeness.

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%, so both parameters (domain and dataset_id) are fully documented in the schema, including examples and notes about originating from search results. The description itself adds little beyond that — it reinforces that these come from the search tool but doesn't provide additional meaning such as formats or edge cases. Hence baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full metadata and column schema for one dataset on a specific Socrata portal'), detailing exactly what fields are returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like socrata.datasets.query (data querying) and socrata.datasets.search (finding datasets). No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.

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 explicitly advises using socrata.dataset_search first to obtain domain and dataset_id, which is valuable sequencing guidance. However, it references 'socrata.dataset_search' while the actual sibling tool is 'socrata.datasets.search' — a minor but potentially confusing mismatch. It also doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when you need to query rows rather than metadata).

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