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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context such as 'no raw DB rows, no live DB connection, no trading signal' which clarifies the data scope but does not explain response format or other behavioral nuances, like whether results are capped at 100. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds critical usage guidance on limitations and alternatives. No wasted words, but could be slightly more compact without losing essential information.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 8 parameters, some enums, and no output schema. The description covers the data scope and alternatives but does not clarify parameter roles, expected return format, or pagination/limits, which could be inferred from schema defaults. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete; more detail on parameters and return behavior would be useful.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions that it queries a 'sample layer' and 'whitelisted export datasets', without describing any of the 8 parameters. The schema's enum for 'dataset' and patterns for dates provide some implicit meaning, but the description adds minimal value. Since the description does not explain parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but it falls short of fully compensating.

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 clearly states the tool queries a free bounded stillme dataset sample layer with specific verbs and resource ('Query the free bounded stillme dataset sample layer'). It also distinguishes itself from potential alternatives by naming the POST endpoint for larger slices. This makes its purpose unmistakable even among numerous sibling 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?

The description gives explicit context on when to use this tool: for whitelisted export datasets, and explicitly notes it is not for raw DB rows, live DB connections, or trading signals, which helps rule out misuse. It also directs to an alternative (POST /v1/datasets/{name}/query) for larger slices, but does not clearly list when to use sibling tools, so not a full 5.

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