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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful catalog semantics and listing behavior, but does not describe return format, pagination, or other operational details beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently enumerates each kind. It is dense but largely waste-free, though the single long sentence with semicolon-separated clauses is somewhat run-on.

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?

For a six-parameter meta-tool with no output schema, the description covers the main kinds, listing behavior, and key parameter usage. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only minor gaps around return shape and defaults.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the kind values, when to omit id, and how expand/detail and category apply to specific kinds. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates well for the most important parameters, though it does not fully document every parameter nuance.

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 clearly identifies this as a catalog for the other tools and enumerates the five supported kinds, so an agent can understand its role. It is specific about the resources covered, though it uses a noun phrase rather than a crisp verb and relies on 'other tools' for sibling differentiation.

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 explains what each kind provides and implies usage contexts, such as tables being a run_query guide and operations covering submit_mutation request schemas. It also states 'Omit id to list,' but does not explicitly name when not to use this tool or compare it directly with alternatives.

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