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

Annotations already cover read-only and safety, so the description adds context beyond that: items are type 'l' or 't', ids end in .px, and browsing is 'one level at a time.' This gives a partial sense of the return structure, though no output schema exists. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then adding usage guidance. No redundant words, 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 simple browse tool, the description covers the core behavior, return item types, and workflow integration with sibling tools. It adequately fills the gap left by the absent output schema and makes the tool usable in a larger context.

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 description for the single parameter 'path' is already detailed (sub-path under /stat/, default empty, example). The description only reinforces the use of a path, so it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 'browse[s] the subject tree of available tables' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stat_ee_find_table by noting that this tool is for browsing a known path while the sibling handles English questions. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Handy for listing everything under a path you already know' and provides an alternative ('use stat_ee_find_table'). It also gives follow-up steps with table_meta + query_table, so usage is well-defined.

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