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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the returned attributes (freshness, row count, status, cached table name, shared vs owned) and a careful explanation of the `publishable` flag's conditional semantics, which is genuinely non-obvious behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first clause, then the returned fields, then the one genuinely subtle flag. The `publishable` sentence is long but earns its length because the ownership/permission interaction is not derivable from the schema. Minor cost: the first sentence carries a heavy comma list.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so enumerating the key fields plus the sharing state. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or behavior when no datasets are accessible, but for a simple read-only list tool the essential information is present.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is required. The description instead spends its space on output-field semantics, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the cached Data Sets") and clarifies the concept with a parenthetical definition ("materialized BI sources") plus scope ("both your own and any shared with you"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dataset_get or dashboard_list, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling dataset_query (hinted at by "the cached table name to query"), but the description never says when to use this versus dataset_get or dashboard_list, nor any preconditions. The mention of the cached table name to query is the strongest available signpost.

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