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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: that no input is needed and that it provides a sample, not real analysis. This is valuable beyond annotations, but not extensive.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place by stating purpose, target audience, limitations, and relation to sibling tools.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, clear annotations, output schema exists), the description fully covers its role, audience, and constraints. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 coverage is 100%; the single parameter 'engine' is described in the schema with enum values and a description. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'which engine example to show (default postgresql)', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool shows a complete SIXTA analysis on a realistic sample for PostgreSQL or MySQL. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying it is not for analyzing real artifacts, thus positioning it as a demo/example tool. The verb 'show' and resource 'sample analysis' are specific.

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 explicitly recommends use for first-time or empty-handed users who want a preview before running real analysis. It also explicitly warns against using for real artifacts, directing users to the analysis tools. This provides clear 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.