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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them — cost ('Free'), auth requirement ('no account needed'), that the result enumerates which tools need sign-in and how, and the catalog_version staleness/refresh rule. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, no waste, and the most important instruction ('Start here') is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: purpose, refresh trigger, return contents, and the free/no-account note.

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 explain the return payload — and it does: tool list, input schemas, sign-in requirements, sign-in instructions. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and re-call this 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and no parameter semantics are needed; the 4 reflects a clean, unparameterized contract without any added or missing parameter detail.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns every datawebot tool available now, along with each tool's input schema, sign-in requirements, and sign-in instructions. It also distinguishes itself from run_tool, naming that sibling as the channel for tools added after the session started.

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?

Explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Start here' and 'call again whenever a result's meta.catalog_version differs from the one you saw first,' plus the alternative path (run_tool) for newly added tools. Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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