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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the returned structure — sets, child counts, attributes, and the semantic meta-information subtree — which matters because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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, no filler. The return contents are front-loaded and the usage guidance follows, so an agent gets the payload description before the routing advice.

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 must and does sketch the return shape, and it frames the tool's role as an exploration entry point. It stops short of noting practical caveats such as subtree size at higher depth values or how the 'business' parameter interacts with a read, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so depth, business, database, and attributes are all already documented in the schema, including the cross-business caveat on 'business'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Azquo database) and then enumerates exactly what comes back: top-level sets with child counts, available attributes, and the meta-information subtree. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_databases and describe_set, which cover different scopes.

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?

"Use this as the first step when exploring an unfamiliar database" gives an explicit entry condition, and "one call gives more context than multiple AQL probes" names the alternative (query_aql) it displaces. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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