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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds content-level transparency by enumerating the exact topics covered, including nuanced rules like the __policy__ adoption conditions and fail-closed behavior on null links. No contradiction exists.

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 dense single lead sentence plus a list; all items add real information about the tool's coverage. It is longer than average but no wasted words, and the purpose and usage are front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and its behavior is fully covered by annotations. The description enumerates the entire scope of the reference — policy, computed columns, constraints, audit, admin_write, user FK attribution, and batch reading — so an agent can decide whether this is the right reference without additional info.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage; the description cannot meaningfully add parameter semantics. The baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'Get the reference' plus the resource 'advanced schema features' names exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from template schema tools by saying these features are ones 'the templates do not show' and enumerates the specific topics, so an agent won't confuse it with get_schema or get_template_schemas.

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 says explicitly to read it 'before adding authorization or derived fields to a schema' and that it is for advanced features not shown in templates. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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