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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the returned field attributes, which is real added value given there is no output schema. It does not cover behavior on an unknown tableId or whether an empty filter result is an error.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact parameter list and a return-shape list. The structure maps directly to how an agent reads a tool definition, and nothing is padded.

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?

For a small three-parameter read tool, purpose, inputs, and return fields are all present, so an agent can call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain: no note on empty results, error behavior, or pagination for wide tables.

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% and every parameter already has a description, so the description's parameter list is largely a restatement. It confirms fieldId and fieldName are filters rather than additional requirements, but adds no format or precedence guidance (e.g., what happens if both filters are supplied).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get fields metadata from a table"), which is clearly distinguishable from get-records and call-api-read at a glance. It stops short of naming any sibling or scoping boundary explicitly.

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 purpose implies when to use it (you need field/column metadata for a known table), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer get-tables-meta or get-records instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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