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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: connectionId returns organisation-wide definitions plus the connection's own, with the connection's own replacing an org-wide one of the same kind and name — a precedence rule an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

It is one dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the resource and its subtypes before moving to the parameters. Every clause carries information (the four subtypes, the override rule, the search fields, the rationale for metric expressions); only the closing sentence about agreeing with team reports is slightly redundant with the earlier metric explanation.

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 optional parameters are documented in the schema and enriched in prose, there is no output schema to explain, and the description covers what kinds of definitions come back and how connection scoping works. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the inheritance/override behaviour of connectionId and by stating that search matches on name, synonym or description — the synonym matching in particular is not in the schema's "Words to look for" wording.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("The organisation's shared definitions") and immediately enumerates the four subtypes returned: metrics, datasets, relationships and admin notes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fastero_run_sql (executes) or fastero_save_definition (writes) because it frames itself as the read side of the definition store.

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 states the triggering context explicitly — "for writing SQL about a business question" — and explains that a query built from a metric agrees with the team's reports, which tells the agent when this lookup is worth doing. It never names an alternative (e.g. fastero_list_connection_schemas for raw table structure) or says when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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