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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly frames the tool as a read-only listing operation ('List every...') and discloses the returned fields. It doesn't mention potential side effects or authorization requirements, but for a listing operation this is adequately transparent. Slightly more could be said about being non-destructive, but it's strongly implied.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key output fields, and wastes no words. Excellent structure.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is listed and the fields returned. It omits pagination or output formatting details, but these are not critical for this tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, tenant_key, including when it is required. The description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear semantics, hitting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clearly defined resource: 'every declared table that has a computed semantic model'. It also lists the exact output fields (version, staleness, row count, last computed), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like host.table.list or host.table.describe.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need a summary of computed semantic models. The specificity of 'every declared table that has a computed semantic model' makes the use case obvious, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like host.table.list or host.table.describe. This is clear context without exclusions.

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