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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes it is a safe read, and the description adds real behavioral context by naming the underlying passthrough (GET /api/v1/resource/{Object}/INFO) and describing the shape of what is returned (fields, types, joinable associations). It stops short of discussing permissions, error behavior for unknown objects, or caching.

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?

One sentence covering purpose, return content and downstream use, followed by a terse endpoint reference. No filler, and the payoff ('what deputy_query_resource can filter, sort and join on') is placed prominently.

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?

With a single-param tool and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so (field list, field types, joinable associations). It could be slightly more complete on failure modes for invalid object names, but nothing needed to call 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% and the enum documents all 52 object names plus the Deputy naming aliases, so the schema carries this dimension. The description only supplies the {Object} placeholder correspondence, which is marginal additional value; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (a Resource API object's field list, types and joinable associations), naming exactly what artifact comes back. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling deputy_query_resource as the consumer of that metadata, so an agent can separate it from query/list tools without opening any schema.

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 clearly implied: this is the introspection step that tells you 'what deputy_query_resource can filter, sort and join on', so the natural workflow is describe-then-query. It does not spell out an explicit when-not or preconditions (e.g. whether the object must exist or be permitted), which keeps it just 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.