list_data_management_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantic that the table filter is an exact match (not a pattern search), but says nothing about pagination, default result size, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the only meaningful qualifier attached. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the limit parameter and the shape of the returned list (fields, paging behavior) entirely unspecified. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the result size or what the objects contain.

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 the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that 'table' is an exact-match filter, which is genuinely useful, but the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned and no default or range is given.

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 ('List Data Management Policies') with a scope qualifier ('optionally for one exact table'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_data_management_policy and create_data_management_policy. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Optionally for one exact table' implies when to pass a filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (get_data_management_policy, create_data_management_policy) an agent might confuse it with. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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