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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns the 'full set' of rows, warns that columns vary per view (variable schema), and confirms no authentication is needed. This helps set agent expectations about response shape and completeness.

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 and resource are front-loaded, and the source, data origin, and auth note are compactly included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only fetch with an output schema available, the description covers the prerequisite (view_id source), variable column shape, full-row return semantics, data provenance, and auth requirements. 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%; the schema already documents that view_id is a UUID from statbel.list_views and that it encodes the language. The tool description repeats the view_id source but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('full set of fact rows ... for one Statbel beSTAT view'), and the identifier source ('view_id from statbel.list_views'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools like statbel.catalog.list_views, which lists views, and statbel.catalog.datasource_detail, which provides metadata.

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 references the prerequisite workflow: obtain view_id from statbel.list_views, then call view_data. It also notes that no auth is required. While it doesn't name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, the catalog siblings are sufficiently different in purpose that the guidance is clear.

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