bfs_get_table_metadata

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (JSON with title, source, update date, variables with codes and value options) and provides an example output structure. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, workflow position, args, returns, and example. The purpose is front-loaded. The Args section duplicates schema descriptions, slightly bloating length, but the overall structure and example justify the size.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, return structure, and example output. It does not mention error cases or size limitations, but the output schema (present) and annotations reduce the need for such details. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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's Args section restates the schema's parameter info (table_id and lang) with no additional semantic depth. The example ID and language codes already exist in the schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by offering new meaning or richer explanations.

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 clearly states 'Get metadata for a BFS table: title, variables, and available filter values,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as an 'Essential step before calling bfs_get_data,' making it distinct from data retrieval and search/browse tools.

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 explicitly says 'Essential step before calling bfs_get_data,' giving clear when-to-use context within the BFS workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the reference to bfs_get_data implies the intended usage pattern.

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