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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: counts represent flows, and optional query/filters narrow every count including flowIntents. It does not detail response structure or whether counts are exact/permission-limited, but it adds meaningful value beyond 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return content, followed by usage guidance and parameter behavior. No wasted text.

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 the nested filter schema, absence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. It could be more complete by explaining the response shape or query semantics, but the essentials are 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?

Top-level schema coverage is low, so the description should compensate. It explains that query/filters narrow counts and that flowIntents is affected, but it does not clarify what query searches or how filters combine. Nested filter descriptions in the schema partially fill the gap, so this is adequate but incomplete.

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 resource and return content: filter vocabulary with real counts (number of flows) for named dimensions. It clearly distinguishes itself from search_screens and search_flows by positioning itself as the facet-discovery step before filtering.

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?

Explicitly instructs: 'Call this before filtering search_screens or search_flows so filters are real values, not guesses.' This names the alternatives and the condition under which to use this tool, leaving little ambiguity.

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