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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that the tool requires editor permissions and incurs no LLM call cost. It also discloses that server-side state does not prove the external replica has applied deltas, and that purge_entity_state may have removed delivered rows. These are behavioral caveats not captured in 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, requirements/returns, and caveats/routing. The most important scoping ('not per-run records') is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, return contents, pagination, edge cases (rejected/purged rows), and explicitly routes to alternative tools for diagnostics. With an output schema present, it need not detail the response structure further. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema already documents schema_id, entity_type, and include_payload with descriptions, covering 60% of parameters. The description adds only that pagination uses limit/offset and that include_payload can be set false for a compact listing, which largely mirrors the schema. For the undocumented limit and offset, their purpose is evident from names and defaults, so the description adds limited additional value.

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 lists a schema's current merged entity rows, explicitly distinguishing it from per-run records. It names the returned fields (identities, revision, last_record_id, optional payload) and pagination, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use get_record and list_database_syncs for delivery and rejection diagnostics, routing the agent away from this tool for those purposes. It also notes that rejected entities have no row and that purge_entity_state may remove rows, which informs when to expect data. The requirement for editor and no LLM call are stated.

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