ava_schema

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful sequencing context (must be consulted before querying) but says nothing about what the call returns, its cost, or how 'resolving missing choices' behaves under a read-only contract — that phrasing slightly strains against readOnlyHint without clearly contradicting it.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the inspection action and the imperative 'never guess them'. The trailing list of semantic choices (population, periods, units, refunds, grain) is dense but each item carries domain meaning; no filler sentences.

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 an introspection tool with no output schema, the description should signal roughly what comes back (table/column metadata, rule set, semantic definitions) and it does only implicitly. The dual read-inspect/read-semantics scope and the undefined 'resolve missing choices' step leave an agent guessing about this tool's full behavior.

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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema with a pattern and the note that it comes from ava_source. The description adds no meaning about datasetId beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb set and resource: inspect tables, columns, types, language, and SQL rules, plus read ava_semantic definitions. This is clearly distinguishable from the query/execute sibling ava_query, though the second clause about 'resolving missing choices' blurs whether this tool reads or records semantic decisions, overlapping ava_semantic.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('before querying; never guess them'), which tells the agent this is a prerequisite step rather than a data-returning tool. It does not explicitly name which alternative to use if the agent already knows the schema, or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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