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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds materially more: the return shape, the fact that last_failure carries code/stage/run/timestamp but not the provider's words, and the untrusted_provider_content contract with an explicit prompt-injection warning. That security-relevant disclosure is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the untrusted-content caveat and id provenance. The prose is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries operational information; only the 'same shape on every tool' aside is arguably redundant here.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields and the special handling of last_failure versus untrusted_provider_content is exactly the missing information. Combined with id provenance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving an example payload and by documenting where valid table ids originate. It omits format/validity expectations (UUID) that the schema enforces, so it adds meaning but not full coverage.

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 ('one table as the builder sees it') and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: promotion status, live version, refresh schedule, learned rhythm, last refresh and last failure. This is clearly distinguishable from list_tables, get_table_schema, query_table and diagnose_table.

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 tells where table ids come from (register_recipe, get_my_dataset, a run receipt), which is useful operational guidance, but it never says when to call this instead of siblings like diagnose_table, get_table_schema or query_table. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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