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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about classification categories (access modes) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond that. Given the annotation, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded and the use case is succinctly stated. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 description explains the output at a high level (classifies schemas and access modes), which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. Since there's no output schema, it doesn't provide exact return structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is adequate.

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 single parameter project_uuid is fully described in the schema ('Defaults to the key's project'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 classifies schemas by connector-backed vs app-authored and access mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like schema_list or schema_get by focusing on classification and access modes, and provides a specific use case that differentiates it.

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 says when to use it: to avoid rendering create/edit UI for read-only live sources or overwriting connector-discovered schemas. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the use case is clearly scoped, giving strong guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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