info_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the execution mechanism (EVALUATE) and output shape, but does not disclose read-only behavior, permission requirements, or how invalid view names are handled.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and output. Slightly dense but every phrase contributes meaning, including the technical example and enum list.

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 metadata query tool with 3 params and no output schema, it conveys the core purpose and view selection. However, it leaves return row shapes, error behavior, and maxRows semantics unspecified, though those are partially covered by schema.

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 description repeats the view enum values already present in the schema and adds minor context like 'or INFO.<x>()' and 'etc.' It does not substantially enrich understanding beyond the schema, which already covers 67% of parameters.

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?

Clear verb ('Run EVALUATE INFO.VIEW.<view>()') and resource (model metadata views) with explicit output type (shaped rows). It distinguishes itself as the generic model documentation/lineage surface, a unique concept among siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_measures or list_tables. The phrase 'documentation/lineage surface' implies use but lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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