describe_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it states what the tool returns—entities, namespaces, attributes, and coverage windows—and reveals a key domain rule that attributes are the only raw fields a plan may reference. It does not explicitly discuss output format or side effects, but 'Describe' and the output schema make the read-only nature sufficiently clear.

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?

The description is two dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a crucial caveat with concrete sibling pointers. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and this is a read-only descriptive tool, the description sufficiently covers what the agent learns and when to route to definition tools instead. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented include_play_columns parameter, but the overall guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide the valid domain for the entity parameter by listing the six entity names, but it says nothing about include_play_columns, its default behavior, or how filtering by entity affects the result. One parameter remains essentially undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Describe' and identifies a precise resource: what can be queried, including the six entities, their namespaces, and every attribute with its coverage window. This immediately distinguishes it from definition-related tools like list_definitions and propose_definition.

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 a clear decision rule: raw fields belong to this schema, while concepts such as 'star' or 'injury' must be terms looked up via list_definitions and propose_definition. It does not cover all sibling alternatives, but the most important schema-vs-definition distinction is explicit.

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