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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is established. The description adds behavioral context: the multi-step workflow (manifest first, then drill-down) and the explicit claim that it describes data rather than returning evidence. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining how the tool is meant to be used, which is valuable for an agent.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then gives a concise usage instruction, and ends with a clear limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is not sufficient to fully understand how to use all features. It covers the high-level flow but omits details on pagination, filtering options, and the distinction between the two page/option_page parameters. The output schema exists, so return structure is known, but the parameter semantics are incomplete, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It only hints at 'section' and 'detail' by saying 'use an advertised section and detail,' but it does not explain the other parameters (page, page_size, search, field_id, lifecycle, option_page, option_page_size). The agent is left to guess their semantics. The description provides a general workflow but fails to clarify the full parameter landscape, making this a significant gap.

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 tool's role: 'Discover what Data Parrot knows about this workspace and how to retrieve it.' It distinguishes itself from data-returning siblings by explicitly noting 'This tool describes data; it does not return business evidence.' The verb 'Discover' is specific and the resource is clear, though it could be more precise about what 'Data Parrot knows' entails.

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?

It provides a clear usage pattern: 'Call with no arguments for the compact master manifest, then use an advertised section and detail for focused fields...' This tells the agent when to call with no args and how to proceed. It also gives an implicit exclusion: since it does not return business evidence, the agent should use sibling tools like get_deals when actual data is needed. No explicit alternatives are named, but the limitation serves as guidance.

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