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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the return content (per-table row counts and aggregate byte usage), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, read-only safety beyond the implied "List", pagination, or cost of the aggregate scan.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, scope, and return payload with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only inventory tool with no output schema and one well-documented optional parameter, the description covers what is returned and at what scope. Missing only minor context such as ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) including the Authorization header precedence rule. The description adds nothing about tenant_key, so 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 and resource ("List this tenant's declared tables") and even discloses the payload (row count plus table-store byte usage), which separates it from host.table.schema and host.table.query. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over host.table.schema or host.state.list, nor under what circumstances the inventory is the right call.

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