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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pinned ordering, compact summary format with IDs/names/links, and the notable 'no LLM call' trait. It also warns about unpublished changes in working copies, which is valuable beyond the annotations.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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and output, the second routes to sibling tools, and the third provides a caveat about published vs. working copies. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and is covered by safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how results are ordered, and the key caveat about database-linked schemas, leaving nothing essential for the agent to guess.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description appropriately focuses on output and usage rather than parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List saved schemas in your organization, pinned first.' It also clarifies the output is compact summaries with IDs, names, and links, and distinguishes itself from get_schema and get_schema_part, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools.

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 names alternatives and the conditions for choosing them: 'Use get_schema to inspect a chosen schema and its input contract, or get_schema_part for a targeted edit.' It also adds practical guidance about enriching database-linked schemas against the published version rather than the working copy.

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