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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations — __policy__ replaces creator-ownership per table and fails closed on a null link, __constraints__ checked at commit when deferrable, __audit__ append-only — which is genuinely useful for predicting semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and a usage cue in the first clause, then a 'Covers:' list where each item is load-bearing topical content rather than filler. Dense and long, but for a reference-index tool the enumeration is what lets the agent decide whether to fetch it, so the length is largely earned.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the covered feature areas well enough that an agent knows what it will get. It does not describe the form of the returned reference (prose vs. example blocks), a minor gap for a zero-param documentation tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents the conceptual keys the reference covers (__policy__, __constraints__, __audit__, __admin_write__, <field>__in, expected_count, row_version), which is the closest analogue to parameter semantics for this tool.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the reference for ADVANCED schema features') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the template-schema siblings ('the templates do not show'). An agent can tell it apart from get_schema, get_template_schemas and get_schema_at_version without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'read this before adding authorization or derived fields to a schema.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but it does not name a specific alternative tool (e.g. get_schema) or state when NOT to read this.

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