Describe metadata

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: drill-down is hierarchical/stepwise and schemas are 'sampled' rather than exhaustive, which affects how the agent should interpret results.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the operational hint second. The parenthetical source-type list is long but earns its place by clarifying breadth; nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the definition conveys enough: what it enumerates, how to drill down, and that schemas are sampled. Minor gap in not describing the shape of returned results, but that is largely inferable from the enumerated metadata kinds.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'path', 'filter', and 'source' are already documented with examples and wildcard syntax in the schema itself. The description restates the drill-down and wildcard concepts without adding format or semantics beyond that baseline.

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 (browses) and resource (metadata of a source) and enumerates the concrete metadata kinds it can return across source types. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like query or list_sources, though the exploratory 'step by step' framing implies discovery rather than querying.

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?

'Use path to drill down and filter ... to narrow' explains how to operate the tool but not when to choose it over query, list_sources, or read_result. Usage is implied as an exploratory/discovery step, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is given.

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