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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial runtime behavior: default page size (40), hard cap (200), 'answerable first' ordering, the counts fields, and the truncation rule that a page can be shorter than requested with 'entities_truncated' flagging it and offset advanced by received count. That is real disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the askable-vs-has distinction before paging mechanics. It is dense but largely earns its space; the guidance around the two counts fields and truncation is slightly repetitive and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, which it does: 'counts.entities_in_model', 'counts.answerable_in_model', and 'entities_truncated', plus the note that metrics appear once on the first page and are model-wide. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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 schema already documents limit/model/offset; baseline would be 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: how to use offset with counts.entities_in_model to page through everything, and the caution to advance by the number RECEIVED rather than the requested limit.

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 ('List the business entities and blessed metrics in ONE model') and immediately clarifies the domain term ('Entities are business nouns... not source tables'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_flows by contrasting 'what can be ASKED' vs 'what the account HAS'.

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 names the alternative (list_flows) and the condition that selects it ('narrower than what the account HAS — for that, use list_flows'). It further tells the agent how to use the tool correctly across pages rather than concluding from one page.

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