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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context: 'Metadata only: no data is read', the exact per-table fields returned, and that last_updated is the last commit in UTC. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits.

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 with the usage trigger and 'Start here', and every sentence carries information about scope or return shape. It is denser than ideal in the middle enumeration of return fields, but there is little waste.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract: identity, catalogs, fully-qualified table names, row_count, size_bytes, last_updated, doc, and agents_md. Combined with the explicit 'metadata only' boundary, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches it: search is typo-tolerant and matches table names, column names and column docs; catalog and namespace narrow the listing. It clarifies intent beyond the terse schema strings, though it adds no format or example values.

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 tables) with explicit scope: catalogs the caller can read and their tables with freshness metadata. It also distinguishes itself from the read_agents_md sibling by explaining that agents_md notes are 'which read_agents_md returns'. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it ('when the user asks what data they keep in LakehouseBox, which tables exist or how fresh they are') and positions it as the entry point ('Start here'). It also explains when to prefer the search parameter over full listing, but never names sibling alternatives like describe_table or query for deeper inspection.

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