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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It goes beyond them by detailing lease duration, replayability, transactional application, page_limit bounding, snapshot pause behavior, and the fact that no LLM call is made. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 dense but every sentence carries distinct information: scope, replay/lease semantics, transactional ordering, limit constraint, snapshot gating, and a pointer to detailed docs. It is front-loaded with the core read action and wastes no words.

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 sync-consumption tool with an output schema, the description covers the operational essentials: lease behavior, acknowledgment dependency, ordering, limit interaction, and snapshot handling. It also links to documentation for leasing, cursors, quarantine, and snapshot handling, so an agent has enough context to invoke 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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already explains database_id, claim, and since. The description adds meaning by explaining that claim=false is replayable while claim=true leases the window, and that limit is also bounded by the registration's page_limit. This usefully supplements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 action and resource: 'Read the next ordered window of SQL deltas and canonical payloads for a database sync.' This clearly distinguishes it from acknowledge-only or sync-management siblings such as ack_database_deltas and create_database_sync. The scope of the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Provides actionable guidance on claim=false vs claim=true, the 120-second lease, and the requirement to apply a claimed window before calling ack_database_deltas. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the coordination with ack_database_deltas and replayability semantics give clear context.

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