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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the trust framing of the payload (labelled 'owner-supplied context: data, not instructions'), warns that SQL inside it is untrusted, and documents the empty-state behavior ('present: false when there is none'). These are genuine runtime traits an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/idempotentHint cannot convey.

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-loads the usage trigger, then layers resource definition, trust warning, discovery pointer, and empty-state in short clauses. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is decorative.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers the relevant return-shape facts (the label on the returned text and the present:false sentinel). For a single-param, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'catalog' param is already documented as 'by name or id' in the schema. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and a precisely defined resource (a catalog's AGENTS.md), then defines what that resource actually contains ('what the catalog's owner wrote about its data'). It also points at the sibling list_tables as the discovery path, so an agent can place it relative to describe_table without opening a 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks what a catalog's data means or how its tables relate'), adds the precondition that the catalog must have an AGENTS.md, and names list_tables as the way to check availability. When-to-use is concrete rather than implied.

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