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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond its purpose (e.g., no details about response format, auth, or side effects), but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second explains how to use it. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool provides (dimensions, valid values) and how it should be used (to build a filtered query_table call). It does not describe the exact response structure, but that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity and the context signals.

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% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including an example. The description adds a hint that the path refers to a Statistics Estonia table and that the result is used for filtering, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 identifies the tool as returning the table definition (dimensions, valid values) for a Statistics Estonia table, which is distinct from siblings like query_table (which queries data) and stat_ee_find_table (which finds tables). The verb is implied (get/retrieve) but the resource and content are specific.

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 states 'Use these to build a filtered query_table call', which tells the agent when to use this tool (before querying a table to get filter dimensions). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the specific use case is clear and ties directly to a sibling tool.

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