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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful input constraint (bare table path with no '.px' suffix), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or potential errors. This modest addition warrants a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences front-loading the core purpose and then a specific usage guideline. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and input requirement. It doesn't explain the structure of the returned definition, but the basic information is adequate. A bit more detail on the expected response could improve it.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, but the description adds crucial semantic information by specifying that the path must be used without the '.px' suffix. This goes beyond the schema's example, improving the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning table definition metadata, specifying 'dimensions, valid values'. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the noun phrase is unambiguous and distinguishes it from data-querying siblings like query_table. The path usage hint adds specificity.

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 clear context: use this tool to obtain table definitions, dimensions, and valid values. It also provides a specific path format instruction (no '.px' suffix). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the sibling list suggests query_table handles data queries.

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