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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds behavior beyond that: the write is an upsert ('create or replace') and is asynchronous ('queues a hosted job') with a defined retrieval path via get_job. This materially changes how an agent must call and follow up on the tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the async workflow note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Covers the important async job semantics and the get_job follow-up, which are the hardest parts to infer. However, with 7 required parameters, nested objects, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves expectedRevision, idempotency, and the definition shape entirely undocumented.

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 only 29% across 7 required parameters, including a nested definition object, so the description carries a heavy burden. It mentions none of them: tableIds, projectId, expectedRevision, idempotencyKey, or workspaceToken are left entirely to the schema. 'Multilevel' only faintly hints at the levels structure.

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 ('Create or replace a reusable multilevel banner') with the qualifier 'multilevel' and 'reusable'. It is distinguishable from table-oriented siblings like run_table or render_crosstab, though it does not explicitly contrast with similarly named define_* tools.

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?

Gives clear operational context for the async flow: 'Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result,' which routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as apply_filter or define_row_set, so no exclusions.

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