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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the lack of destructive side effects is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the environment requirement (duckdb provider), the session/scoped nature of the data, and the trigger condition tied to canvas spill-over from socrata_query_dataset.

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 tight sentences lead with the core behavior and outputs, then add the relational context, environment prerequisite, and invocation timing. There is no filler or repetition of schema details that are already present.

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, one-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the necessary invocation context: what it lists, when to call it, and the sole parameter's provenance and failure behavior. Nothing critical 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?

Although the schema already describes canvas_id at 100% coverage, the description adds valuable practical semantics: the canvas ID comes from socrata_query_dataset when a result spills, it is required in practice even though the schema marks it optional, and omitting it yields canvas_id_required. This materially helps an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 and resource: it lists registered tables in a DataCanvas session and names the included details (schema, row count, column names). It also positions itself against sibling tools like socrata_dataframe_query and socrata_query_dataset, so an agent can distinguish it from nearby alternatives.

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 clear contextual guidance: use it after socrata_query_dataset writes a large result set to canvas, and note that it only matters when CANVAS_PROVIDER_TYPE=duckdb is set. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming an alternative, but the usage context is strong.

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