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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds return-content detail and workflow context, but it does not add additional behavioral transparency such as rate limits, authentication nuances, or API failure modes.

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 efficient sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool fetches, the second tells the agent how to use it, and the third clarifies the key parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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, idempotent metadata lookup with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value, the parameter source, and the tool's role in the resource_data workflow. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions, including an example UUID for resourceId. The description's note about the UUID source mostly restates the schema, so the schema carries the parameter documentation and the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch the schema/metadata for a data.gov.in resource by resourceId.' It enumerates the returned attributes and distinguishes itself from the sibling resource_data tool by framing itself as the metadata lookup that precedes data retrieval.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover filterable/sortable field ids before calling resource_data, giving a concrete workflow. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for data retrieval.

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