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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content and even the value-wrapper shape ({v, m, c, src}), which helps an agent decode results. However, it never states that this is a read-only/no-side-effect metadata call, nor any auth or caching/rate-limit behavior, leaving basic behavioral facts to inference.

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 sentences, no filler, and the sibling routing clause is placed at the end where it belongs. The first sentence is a bare noun-list fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly hurts readability but not density.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so at a high level (schema version, states, condition values, sorts, wrapper format). Enough for an agent to know when this returns the information it needs, though the specifics of each item remain unspecified.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter discussion and none is needed.

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 enumerates the specific metadata the tool returns (schema links, schema version, covered states, condition values, search sorts, value-wrapper format), which is enough to identify it as a schema/ontology introspection tool. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_searchable_fields by naming it as the sibling to use for filterable fields. It falls short of a crisp verb+resource statement, reading as a list of return contents rather than 'returns the data model ontology'.

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 explicitly routes the agent away for one case: 'For the list of filterable fields and allowed values, use list_searchable_fields.' That is a concrete alternative with the condition that selects it. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance for the tool itself beyond implying it is for reading schema metadata.

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