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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are MEASURED facts rather than the schema's declared claims, and only the most-filled columns are returned by default with a reported count of the remainder. It does not cover error cases, but that is a minor gap for a read-only tool.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, and the payload (what is described) is front-loaded before the workflow hint and the pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope, prerequisites, the measured-vs-declared distinction, and how default truncation and paging work. Nothing material is 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 goes beyond it by explaining the intent behind the parameters — 'matching' to search columns by name, 'offset' to page through all columns using the reported total — which clarifies how to combine them rather than just restating their types.

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 and resource ('Describe ONE flow in depth') and then enumerates the concrete outputs: value counts per column, emptiness, row-identifying columns, and temporal coverage. The emphasis on ONE and the named prerequisite (list_flows) cleanly separates it from list_flows, describe_entity, and sample_values.

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 places the tool in a workflow: 'Use it after list_flows to judge whether a flow can answer a question before anyone models it.' That gives a clear trigger and intended stage of use, but it does not state when to prefer an alternative such as sample_values or query instead.

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