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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool lists access options, but does not describe what the return value looks like, whether it requires a slug to identify the product, or any other behavioral traits. The lack of detail about the output or side effects leaves the agent guessing.

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 a single, concise sentence with a clear structure: an overview ('Every way to get full access to a Dataplex product') followed by a colon and a list of examples. Every part earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the required 'slug' parameter and does not describe what the tool will return. While the title and examples give some context, the agent is missing critical information to invoke the tool 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 schema has one required parameter 'slug' with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer that 'slug' likely identifies a product but without any explicit explanation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('access options'), and enumerates categories (Snowflake Marketplace, Databricks, free trial, docs, human contact) that distinguish it from siblings like pricing or product details.

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 implies the tool is used when you need access options for a product, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like get_pricing or get_sample_data.

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