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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real substance: it discloses the three parts of the return payload (field list, field types, joinable associations) despite there being no output schema, and names the underlying HTTP route. No auth or rate-limit caveats, but for a simple INFO call that is a minor omission.

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 clauses with zero redundancy: the capability statement comes first, the API route second as reference detail. Every word earns its place and the reader gets the essential concept in the first clause.

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 one-parameter, read-only metadata lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (fields, types, joins) and the sibling relationship, which is everything an agent needs to decide to call it and to interpret the result. Nothing material 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 single enum parameter is richly documented in the schema, including the Deputy naming aliases (Company = location, Roster = shift, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only references the parameter indirectly via the '{Object}' path placeholder; 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 precise verb and resource (return a Resource API object's field list, field types, joinable associations) and explicitly ties itself to the sibling deputy_query_resource by naming what that tool can filter/sort/join on. The endpoint reference (GET /api/v1/resource/{Object}/INFO) pins down the exact operation, so the agent can distinguish this metadata tool from the query tool without opening either 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?

The 'what deputy_query_resource can filter, sort and join on' clause tells the agent the downstream purpose, implying this is a discovery step before querying. It routes to the sibling by name, but it never states the explicit trigger ('call this before deputy_query_resource when you don't know the fields') or any when-not condition.

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