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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't required to repeat safety traits. It does add a condition: 'Requires warehouse enablement (business plans),' which is useful operational context. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits or error handling, which is a gap given the tool's multi-action nature.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, followed by a compact list of capabilities and a constraint. There is no filler or repetition. Slightly more organization (e.g., separating capabilities from prerequisites) could make it a 5, but it is already efficient.

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 gives a solid high-level overview of the tool's purpose and use cases, and it mentions the prerequisite. However, it omits details about the 'params' and 'question' fields, and doesn't explain the distinction between 'query' and 'question'. Given the tool's multiple actions and 4 parameters with no output schema, this leaves the agent partially blind about how to use each action effectively.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It maps some action enum values (catalog→browse, find→semantically find, ask→plain-language ask, queries→named templates) indirectly, but it never clarifies the purpose of 'query', 'params', or 'question'. This partial mapping is insufficient for an agent to construct correct invocations.

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 primary function: 'Query your org's data warehouse free.' It enumerates specific capabilities (browse catalog, semantically find data, plain-language ask, named templates) that distinguish it from generic query tools. However, it does not name any sibling tool or explicitly contrast itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies a usage scenario (querying the warehouse) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like ask_library or run_analysis. It mentions a requirement (warehouse enablement) but lacks 'use this instead of X' or 'do not use when...' instructions. The agent is left to infer suitability.

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