list_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces that without contradiction. It adds valuable new behavioral facts: results are scoped to the active API key's organization, the tool is not separately rate-limited, and the exact return fields are enumerated. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by workflow, safety/scoping notes, and return shape. The field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema. Every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 read-only paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, recommended workflow, safety, organization scoping, rate-limit behavior, and return fields. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not meaningfully add parameter-level semantics beyond repeating the compact mode low-token idea already present in the schema. This is the appropriate baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clear action and resource: 'List visible datasets for the current user.' The scope is concrete and useful. However, with a sibling tool named list_datasets that likely covers the same domain, the description does not explicitly differentiate the two, so it stops 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?

The description gives an explicit workflow: use search plus compact mode first for low-token discovery, then get_data_schema on the chosen dataset_id. This names a relevant alternative and a recommended sequence. It does not explicitly state when to avoid list_data or how it relates to the sibling list_datasets, so it is not a perfect 5.

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