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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'overview' and explains the returned data shape (sets, child counts, attributes, meta-info subtree), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits cost/profile details, but for a read-only describe call this is largely sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the concrete return contents followed by the usage recommendation. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by describing what the call returns. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the three inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only deeper behavioral traits (cost, limits) are absent.

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 schema already documents depth, database, and attributes. The description's mention of the 'meta information subtree' and 'available attributes' loosely maps to the depth and attributes parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (get an overview) and resource (an Azquo database) and enumerates exactly what comes back: top-level sets with child counts, available attributes, and the meta-information subtree. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like describe_set, describe_query, or query_aql.

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 says to use it as the first step when exploring an unfamiliar database and contrasts it with 'multiple AQL probes', naming the alternative workflow it replaces. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when the schema is already known), but the positioning guidance is strong.

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