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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (columns, types, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but the tool is simple and read-only.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies the data source, input, and output contents. It does not cover edge cases like invalid resource_id, but that is minor for a straightforward metadata retrieval tool.

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%, but the description adds an example resource_id ('j56h-zgnm') and explains that the tool returns schema + metadata, providing context beyond what the schema description ('Dataset id, e.g. "j56h-zgnm".') offers.

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 retrieves schema and metadata for a King County Open Data dataset by resource_id, listing specific fields (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated). It is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from siblings like 'datasets' which lists datasets.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get metadata for a specific dataset). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context signals and sibling tools imply differentiation.

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