List data sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the exact payload and, notably, that the reported as-of date governs all calculations. It stops short of stating whether the listed set is fixed or reflects the caller's tenant scope.

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?

A single front-loaded clause followed by an efficient colon-list of returned fields; nothing is padded. It is a fragment rather than a sentence with a verb, but it earns its length.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so item by item, including the important as-of date caveat. For a zero-parameter read-only discovery tool this is nearly sufficient; only the scope of the returned list is unexplained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics to explain. The description instead spends its words on what comes back, which is the right allocation here.

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?

The description answers 'what is this' directly: it reports what data is loaded and enumerates the contents (row counts, date range, services/components, as-of date). This is a specific inventory/discovery resource rather than a metric query, which implicitly separates it from the metric siblings, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no reference to the metric siblings that make up the rest of the tool set. An agent can infer it is a discovery call, but the description never says to invoke it first to confirm coverage before running get_mttr, get_dora_metrics, etc.

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