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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a note about approval requirements, but that note is about organizational governance generally rather than about what this tool actually does or returns, so its added behavioral value is limited and slightly ambiguous for a pure discovery call.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and earns its place. The second sentence about MCP approval requirements and business workflow approvals is not clearly tied to a read-only discovery call and reads as boilerplate, diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description tells the agent what it will learn and when to call it. The only gap is the vague approvals sentence, which raises questions it does not answer.

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 empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: discovering supported report datasets, columns and filters. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from report-creation and report-running siblings by framing it as a prerequisite step. It falls short of 5 because no sibling is named explicitly (e.g. run_report, create_saved_report, get_report_metrics).

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?

"before creating or running a report" gives a clear triggering condition for calling this tool rather than jumping straight to run_report or create_saved_report. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not conditions, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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