dv_filter_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered by structured data. The second sentence adds a genuine non-obvious caveat — that presence of a filter schema does not guarantee enforcement at the source — which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the description still omits scope or return-shape details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and capped by a caveat. There is no filler, though the first sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage and a vague purpose on a discovery tool, the description leaves the inputs and the practical workflow incompletely specified.

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 0%, so both 'city' (default 'tehran') and the required 'category' are undocumented. The description implies a category is the key input but says nothing about what values are valid, what 'city' scopes, or the format expected, leaving the agent to guess both 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?

The verb 'Discover' plus resource 'category filter types and units' gives a rough sense of a metadata-introspection tool, but it's unclear what a 'filter schema' actually is or what the tool returns. Nothing in the description distinguishes it from siblings like dv_search or dv_count, so an agent must infer its role.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The caveat sentence hints at a prerequisite (verify the source actually enforces a filter), but the agent is left to infer that this tool should be called before relying on filter behavior.

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