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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: output is CSV, the header reflects the chosen view's visible columns, pagination applies, and no server-side filtering exists yet. It does not cover rate limits or CSV encoding details, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action and format, followed by the prerequisite and the filtering caveat. No filler; each sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs — prerequisites, format, filtering limitation — with nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that collection_view_id determines which columns appear in the CSV header and that column types/IDs come from the collection schema — real semantic context for two of the five parameters.

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 (Fetch), resource (rows from an xTiles collection/database view), and output format (CSV with pagination) in the first clause. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling xtiles_get_view_content, which it explicitly casts as a prerequisite rather than an alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call xtiles_get_view_content to read collection.views[] and pick a collection_view_id. It also states when-not/how-to-work-around: server-side filtering is unavailable, so filters must be applied client-side or via paging.

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