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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'No LLM call,' the caveat that pending zero is not proof of healthy delivery, the note that delivery is performed by the user's sync client for PostgreSQL/MySQL/SQLite, and a pointer to documentation. This gives the agent a realistic model of what the operation does and its limitations.

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 compact yet information-dense: it lists the resource scope, return contents, a critical caveat, routing to alternatives, delivery model, and a docs reference. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded before caveats and alternatives.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers operational context, caveats, sibling routing, and delivery behavior. For a read-only list operation with one required parameter, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter schema_id is already described as 'Saved schema UUID.' The description reinforces this by saying 'a saved schema's...' but does not add new semantic detail such as formats, defaults, or relationship to other identifiers. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'List a saved schema's database registrations, linked schemas, options and sync hosts.' It enumerates the exact returned data and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming list_entity_states and get_record as alternatives. An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'Use list_entity_states for server-side rows and get_record for per-record delivery state.' It also warns when not to rely on a single signal ('Pending zero alone does not prove healthy delivery') and directs to check quarantine and migration blockers. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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