findProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the exact shape of returned property objects (id, name, type, recordsCount), clarifies that `where` applies to Records rather than property metadata, and maps post-call branches. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the 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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then imperative usage, then return structure, then a next-step decision tree. Every sentence earns its place and directly helps an agent act, despite the length.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are redundant but harmless. The description is mostly complete for a discovery tool, but the mention of a `labels` parameter absent from the schema is a gap that could confuse invocation. Otherwise it covers usage, return shape, and next steps thoroughly.

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. The description adds some meaning (e.g., how the `name` field should be used in where/orderBy/groupBy), but it also references a `labels: ["LABEL_NAME"]` filter that does not exist in the input schema, which could mislead an agent. It does not add enough beyond the schema to justify a higher score.

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: 'Discover the field names, types, and IDs available on a record label.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from query tools (findRecords) and value tools (propertyValues) by directing the agent to use it first before any query. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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 an explicit imperative ('Always call this before using field names in any query — never guess or invent field names'), names the alternative next steps (propertyValues, findRecords), and gives a conditional decision tree based on field type. Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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