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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantial behavioral context: it returns a comprehensive set of guidance items including refusals, access limits, provenance fields, and recommended next calls. It also frames itself as 'blind-caller guidance', clarifying its purpose for agents unfamiliar with the tool. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words, but the first sentence is a dense enumeration of many return items which may reduce scannability. Still, every element earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the types of information returned, plus usage steps and the interaction contract. For a simple one-parameter tool with a readOnly annotation, this is complete guidance enabling correct invocation and understanding of outputs.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for tool_name ('Exact tool name from tools/list'). The description adds useful context by instructing to use tools/list first and to call this before an unfamiliar tool, reinforcing how to discover the correct parameter value.

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 provides guidance for one tool, with a specific verb 'Returns' and a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_catalog, get_pack, query_dataset) which are data retrieval tools, while this is meta-guidance for tool usage.

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 says to use tools/list to discover names and call this before an unfamiliar tool, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond mentioning tools/list as a prerequisite, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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