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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds one important behavioral constraint (the '.px' suffix requirement) but doesn't disclose potential errors or response format. Given strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, tightly written sentence that communicates both the tool's purpose and a key usage constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a crucial path constraint. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with an example. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly stating the '.px' suffix requirement, which is not explicitly mentioned in the schema parameter description beyond the example. This enriches the single parameter's meaning.

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 states the tool provides 'Table definition (dimensions, valid values)', which clearly indicates the resource and content type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_table, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 usage for obtaining table metadata and includes a clear prerequisite that the path must end with '.px'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like query_table or search_within, so the when-to-use guidance is only partially present.

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