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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete context beyond that by stating the returned information is 'public-safe' and includes coverage, limitations, and endpoint references. It also implicitly indicates that raw dataset records are not returned. No contradiction with the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action verb and packs in scope, safety, and return content with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and safety-related annotations already present, the description names the concrete return components (coverage, limitations, endpoint references) sufficiently for correct invocation. It could mention behavior for unknown slugs or how to enumerate valid slugs, but the low complexity makes the current description mostly complete.

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%, and the single 'slug' parameter already has a clear description with an example ('location-enrichment'). The description merely repeats 'dataset slug' without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 opens with a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('public-safe coverage, limitations, and endpoint references for one dataset slug'). 'One dataset slug' clearly signals a single-item metadata lookup and distinguishes it from catalog/batch siblings. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for one dataset slug' implies this tool is for retrieving metadata about a single known dataset. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like meta_catalog for discovering slugs. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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