List enrichments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: ordering ('newest first'), legacy-specific fields (`status`, `app_url`, `dataset_id`), and a pointer that dataset copies should use `enrich` instead. The parenthetical about dataset copies is somewhat vague, but overall it adds value beyond annotations.

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 opening 'list enrichments' is redundant with the title, and the parenthetical '(its dataset copy: `enrich` that instead)' is syntactically awkward and slightly cryptic. The content is informative but not as tightly front-loaded or waste-free as it could be.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the key returned fields and notes legacy-specific additions, which is enough for an agent to understand what to expect. It also covers filtering, pagination, and an alternative for full column config. It does not describe the pagination response envelope (e.g., total count), but that is a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a crucial semantic not present in the schema: `status` filtering is legacy only. It also restates max 50 for `per_page` and mentions filtering by `name`, which are already in the schema, so the addition is meaningful but not extensive.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list enrichments') and then specifies the returned fields ('id, name, input / output column names') and ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes the tool from `get_enrichment`, which provides column config, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

It gives clear filtering and pagination guidance ('Paginate with page / per_page (max 50); filter by status (legacy only), name') and points to `get_enrichment` for detailed column configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over `list_datasets` or other listing tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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