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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by defining what the returned entities are (queries that produce rows to sync) and mapping to the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the verb and resource lead, the domain clarification follows, and the endpoint reference is a compact trailing note.

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 simple, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, domain object, and endpoint. The only minor gap is pagination semantics, which is largely covered by the schema itself.

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%, with both page and per_page fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('List SQL models / datasets defined in the workspace') and even clarifies what a model is ('the queries that produce rows to sync'), so an agent immediately knows the domain object. It does not explicitly name the singular sibling census_get_model to contrast scope, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the workspace-level listing scope suggests this is the inventory/browse operation, with census_get_model presumably the single-item alternative. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is named.

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