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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds scoping context ('connected workspace and its site') and clarifies that no location parameter is required, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences: the first covers purpose and capabilities, the second covers invocation context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool's name.

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 a complete input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations present, the description covers the remaining operational nuance: workspace/site scoping and direct invocation. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, with each parameter and enum value explained in the schema. The description adds only the global 'no domain/site parameter' note and does not need to repeat per-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 enumerates the exact operations ('list datasets, sample rows, list templates, and read one template') with a clear resource domain ('dataset library and page templates'). This is enough to distinguish it from SEO-focused siblings like keyword_research or site_pages.

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 tells the agent to 'call directly' and that no domain/site parameter is needed because the tool is already scoped to the workspace. It doesn't name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the sibling tools are in a different domain, so exclusion is not critical.

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