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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-destructive read operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what 'valid values' means, how the tool behaves, or any constraints on usage.

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 only one sentence and technically concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks any actionable detail and provides minimal value beyond the tool name and schema, making it more a placeholder than a concise, informative description.

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?

Although an output schema exists to explain return values, the description is still inadequate for a tool with two required but undocumented parameters. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage context, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. The description only says 'Valid values for a parameter,' which does not explain what 'dataset' and 'parameter' represent, their format, or how to construct valid inputs. This is a significant gap.

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 'Valid values for a parameter' is a noun phrase without an action verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., list, fetch, validate). It is nearly a restatement of the title 'Parameter Values' and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'parameter_values_filtered'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'parameter_values_filtered'. The description provides no context for when this tool is appropriate, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools.

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