describe_schema

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explicitly says the tool 'reads no filings,' which reassures the agent that this is a metadata-only operation with no side effects. This is useful behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the usage guidance is the first sentence, and the return contents are listed in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool with a rich output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what it returns, and that it has no data-reading side effects. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything structurally. The baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 action ('describe schema') with a clear resource, and enumerates exactly what is returned: filing/document field names with types, known filing types, categories, document statuses, and graph edge kinds. It also distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by noting it 'reads no filings.'

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 gives explicit usage timing: use it 'before filtering or interpreting results to learn the canonical fields.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know this is the precondition step.

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