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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, implying a state-mutating, non-repeatable call, while the description presents a pure one-shot listing/read ("Call this once before exploring... Returns the visible schemas..."). The mismatch will confuse an agent about side effects and cacheability; the description itself adds useful context (cheap vs. `full` mode, empty schemas) but does not resolve the conflict.

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-loaded purpose in sentence one, behavior/return content next, and parameter notes last; every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

Both parameters, the one-shot calling pattern, and the shape of the response are covered even though an output schema exists, leaving little ambiguity for a 2-parameter catalog tool. The only real gap is that it does not address the annotation signals about mutability and idempotency.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: `schemas` is documented as an optional comma-separated filter with a concrete example ("bls,bea"), and `full` is explained as heavier per-dataset descriptions instead of the compact index, clarifying the default trade-off.

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 data sources FactIQ has, plus the shared table structure," and enumerates what comes back (visible schemas, dataset index, shared DDL). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like describe_dataset and search_datasets, though it never names them 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?

"Call this once before exploring" gives an explicit calling condition and timing, and the note to skip `schemas_without_data` tells the agent how to act on the result. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it.

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