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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: no LLM call, no credential issued or exposed to the MCP client, the DSN stays on the host, and the pairing flow is browser-confirmed. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of side effects and security boundaries.

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 efficient: purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites, security-relevant behavior, the pairing flow, and a clear when-to-use caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs for correct invocation.

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?

Given the tool has a single documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the remaining operational context: required permissions, setup steps, credential handling, and the manual-pairing condition. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the single parameter 'database_id' is documented with its source ('from list_database_syncs'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return non-secret install, browser-confirmed pairing and run instructions for an ee-database sync client.' This goes well beyond the title and makes the tool's function unambiguous relative to related database-sync siblings.

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?

It states preconditions ('Requires owner and a sync-enabled plan') and gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use manual pairing only when managed host provisioning is not already handling the registration.' It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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