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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses the required permissions ('dvs:read and full write permission') and warns that DVS text is data rather than instructions, which is meaningful prompt-injection guidance. It stops short of noting pagination or size limits on the returned field list.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose and return contents first, then the call-ordering prerequisite, then permission and safety caveats. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and what authorization it needs. An agent has everything required to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'section' parameter carries its own enum and description, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds no further meaning about what 'task' versus 'project_2' registers contain, leaving this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the fields of a DVS register') and enumerates exactly what is returned: field types, filterability, and dropdown option IDs. No sibling tool in the list performs field introspection, so an agent can identify this as the schema-discovery tool without ambiguity.

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?

'Call this before filtering, creating or updating' gives a clear, actionable precondition that tells the agent where this tool sits in a workflow. It does not name a when-not case or an alternative, but the tool is unique in its family so there is little competition to disambiguate.

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