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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It does add useful context about the shape of each listed item (row count, grain, content), which is beyond what the annotation provides, but says nothing about scope limits, size of the catalog, or freshness.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs in the resource and the returned fields with no filler. It reads as a sentence fragment rather than a complete directive, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema already defined and readOnlyHint set, the description covers the essential questions: which tables and what is returned. The only real omission is guidance on how this relates to describe_table for drilling into a specific table.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. No misleading or unnecessary parameter guidance is present.

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 names a specific resource (the tables in the DataSocial TikTok warehouse) and even enumerates the fields returned per table (name, row count, what one row is, what it holds), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling describe_table or explain how the listing differs from that per-table detail call.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (describe_table, examples, run_sql), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The intent as a discovery/entry-point call must be inferred purely from the name.

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