describe_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information by clarifying that the output is an overview rather than the full raw definition, but it says nothing about size limits, latency, or auth requirements. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a scoping clarification. No filler, though the em-dash clause could be tightened. Efficient overall.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and why to use it. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on output format or comparison to closely-related siblings would improve it further.

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?

There is a single parameter (analysis_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Get a structured summary of a QuickSight analysis') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the raw variant by noting it returns an overview 'without the full raw definition.' An agent can separate it from get_analysis_raw without opening either schema.

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?

Provides clear context: 'ideal for understanding what an analysis contains before making changes.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions or name alternatives beyond the implicit contrast with the raw definition.

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