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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains that the returned id matches keys in get_board's positions map, and that the tool lists only tables 'declared' by documents, which clarifies the data scope and helps the agent interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second sentence explains the id relationship and provides practical usage guidance. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary 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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the output fields, connects the id to get_board's positions map, and gives clear use cases. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the schema covers the parameter, so nothing essential is missing.

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 parameter projectId is documented in the schema as a uuid. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully explains the parameter; the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the tables a project's documents declare') and enumerates the exact fields returned, including id, name, schema, owning document, header color, and field count. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_documents and get_board by focusing on table-level metadata.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use this to find a table before recoloring it, or to see which document owns it.' This provides clear context for when to call the tool, and the reference to set_table_color and get_board helps an agent choose it appropriately, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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