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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable functional context beyond these: each view exists as a separate record per language, returns specific fields including the backing data_source_id, and requires no auth. This helps the agent understand the catalog model without overclaiming.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the first establishes what the tool does and its filters, the second explains return fields and downstream usage, the third covers source and authentication. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only catalog listing tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete. It explains the per-language record model, the return fields, how to proceed to actual data retrieval, and that no auth is required. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description confirms search is case-insensitive and filterable by locale, but these details already appear in the parameter descriptions. It adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Browse' and the resource: 'Statbel beSTAT catalog of ~1300 curated, ready-to-query views.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling statbel.catalog.view_data by noting that view_id should be used with view_data to fetch actual figures. The tool's listing role is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear workflow: browse the catalog, filter by locale and name search, then use view_id with statbel.view_data. It explicitly points to the complementary sibling tool for fetching data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative catalog tools like list_datasources, so it stops short of a 5.

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