Get dataset query capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns only allowlisted non-PII metadata, no source rows, no SQL/data URL. This goes beyond a generic 'get capabilities' line and informs the agent about safe, non-row-returning behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state auth, rate limits, or side-effect-freedom.

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 compact sentences. The first sentence front-loads the resource and scope, and the second sentence lists boundary conditions with no filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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 one-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the input and explains the return categories and rejection behavior. It could be more complete by noting how this relates to the sibling query-schema tools, but it is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the county param with pattern, length, and example. The description adds the framing that it covers a county's property and permit datasets, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema property description already states.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Describe bounded aggregate query capabilities for a county's property and permit datasets.' It also enumerates what is returned (allowlisted non-PII fields, types, operators, measures, null semantics, hard budgets, query-table identity) and explicitly says it returns no source rows and accepts no SQL, which distinguishes it from query-execution and row-returning 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?

The description clearly implies when to use: when you need query capability metadata for a county's property/permmit datasets. It also gives a boundary by stating it returns no source rows and accepts no SQL/data URL, which implies other tools handle execution. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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