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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about the list contents (per-row metric details) and relation to get_forecast_run, going beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description adequately covers what the agent needs. It states the row content and points to the companion tool for deeper detail, making it complete for this context.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, is_active), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists metric forecasts in the clariBI organization, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('metric forecasts'). It further specifies what each row covers (source binding, horizon, schedule, latest run status), and differentiates from get_forecast_run by directing users there for full results.

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 description explicitly points to get_forecast_run as the alternative for retrieving full forecast results, providing clear guidance on when to use which tool. It does not exhaustively cover all possible sibling exclusions, but the given guidance is concrete and useful.

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