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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the data source (andmed.stat.ee), that no auth is required, and what the return content includes (title, dimensions, valid values, timestamp). This enriches the annotation baseline without 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 that are dense with useful information: purpose, return items, usage directive, example, and data source. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler, and the example is embedded naturally. Excellent efficiency.

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 metadata lookup with one parameter, the description covers what it does, when to use it, the expected input, and the source. An output schema exists, so return values are additionally documented. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already provides the path format and its origin (type='t' from catalog). The description goes further by giving a concrete example path and explaining that the returned valid values feed into table_query, which is useful contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear, specific action: get metadata for a specific Estonia statistics table, listing exactly what it returns (title, dimensions, valid value codes, latest update timestamp). It is distinct from siblings like estonia-statistics.series.table_query and estonia-statistics.reference.catalog by focusing on metadata discovery for a given table path.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this BEFORE estonia-statistics.table_query to discover accepted filter values.' This provides a direct workflow directive and implies when not to use (after querying). The example path also clarifies the expected input format.

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