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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact contents of the response and frames the tool as a read-only schema-learning operation, which strongly implies no mutation. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter metadata introspection tool these are low-risk and the description covers the essential behavior.

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 brief sentences carry all necessary information. The output contents are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended without waste. The first sentence is a grammatical fragment, but it remains highly scannable and concise.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to call it. It does not detail return formatting, but the tool's purpose is to reveal the schema itself, and sibling tools cover other access patterns. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly includes no parameter information. The baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, and the description adds nothing that could confuse an agent.

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 enumerates the tool's output: columns, numeric flags, row count, and provenance banner of the Curtilo dataset. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the fragment is easily understood, and 'Call this first to learn the schema' reinforces the purpose. It differentiates itself from siblings by being the schema-introspection first step.

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?

'Call this first to learn the schema' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool, positioning it as the initial step before any other dataset operation. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the temporal instruction provides clear usage context.

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