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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: root behavior, node types ('l' for folders, 't' for tables with ids ending in '.px'), and path traversal semantics. This gives the agent concrete expectations for output structure.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose and followed by behavioral detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without any filler or redundancy.

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 simple (one optional parameter, strong annotations, no nested output schema). The description covers root vs sub-path behavior, node types, and id suffix conventions, which is sufficient for an agent to understand inputs and expected outputs fully.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'path' parameter with a description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Navigate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'database/subject tree'. It distinguishes from siblings like query_table and table_meta by focusing on tree traversal and listing node types (databases, folders, tables).

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 implies when to use the tool: when exploring the hierarchical subject tree, with root listing databases and sub-paths listing folders/tables. It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the navigation context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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