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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the required auth sequence, the exact set of returned fields, provenance ('rendered from each service's live product card, never hand-written'), and an edge case (card: 'unavailable' when no card exists). No pagination or rate-limit behavior is disclosed, keeping it short of a 5.

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 blocking auth requirement before the payload description, and every sentence carries information (auth, content, provenance, fallback). Dense but not padded, though the auth clause is long enough to slightly blunt the opening.

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 browse tool with no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape, data origin, and a fallback case, and the annotations cover safety. The main gap is the two unexplained parameters (q, audience), which no structured field clarifies.

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 33%: only 'session' is documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about any parameter. Critically, 'q' (presumably a search/filter) and 'audience' are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it returns 'compact rows for every federated service' and enumerates the fields (name, job, datasets, tool/workflow counts, tiers, enabled status). The scope word 'every federated service' implicitly separates it from single-service siblings like datailo_describe, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives strong prerequisite guidance — sign in via datailo_connect and datailo_connect_verify first — plus the exception when already authenticated. However, it never states when to choose this over datailo_describe, datailo_tools, or datailo_start_here, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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