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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so 'No inputs, writes or charges' largely restates structured data. The final clause, however, adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned schemas do not imply source freshness or independent factual verification, which warns the agent about how much to trust what it reads.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the trust caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries either scope or a caution.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is no input burden; the description covers scope plus a data-trust caveat. The one remaining gap is routing guidance against the schema-adjacent siblings, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Baseline 4 applies since nothing is left ambiguous about invocation inputs.

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 names a concrete verb and resource set: reading supported reference datasets, their fixed columns, operators and limits. That is specific enough for an agent to know what it retrieves, but it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as koskamo_list_datasets or koskamo_query_reference, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is only a negative framing ('No inputs, writes or charges') rather than positive when-to-use guidance. An agent can infer this is the schema-inspection step preceding koskamo_query_reference, but that inference is never stated, and no alternative or exclusion is named.

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