Find Iceberg source implementations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are 'bounded lexical' and 'evidence, not semantic compiler analysis', which warns the agent about the tool's precision and scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the core operation and immediately states the key limitation. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 an output schema, return-value documentation is not the description's burden. The description covers the tool's purpose, its lexical scope, and its 'evidence, not semantics' limitation, which are the most important contextual facts. It could be slightly stronger by naming a sibling alternative or clarifying parameter input format, but it is otherwise sufficient for a read-only lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented fully_qualified_name and limit parameters. It adds only the hint that the type is a 'Java type', which helps with fully_qualified_name, but says nothing about the format, the meaning of limit, or how cursor pagination works. This is insufficient given the low schema 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?

The description names a specific verb ('find') and resource ('bounded lexical extends/implements declarations for a Java type'), and clarifies that the result is lexical evidence rather than semantic compiler analysis. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like iceberg_source_get_type and iceberg_source_search.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need lexical extends/implements declarations, not when you need semantic compiler-accurate hierarchy analysis. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions beyond the lexical/semantic distinction, so it falls 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.