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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that input is analyzed in memory and never stored, and details the types of findings produced. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph of about 150 words. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each sentence contributes. However, it could be slightly more concise or structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema description coverage, presence of output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, specific checks, usage guidance, and privacy guarantee without needing to describe return values. It is complete for the agent to effectively use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The schema descriptions already adequately explain the sql, engine, and version parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., engine-specific checks, version-dependent verdicts) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is a static security and data-handling review of pasted SQL for PostgreSQL or MySQL, listing specific findings like least-privilege violations, SQL injection indicators, weak hashing, and PCI compliance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on query analysis or schema changes.

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 says 'Use when the user asks "is this SQL safe / secure / compliant", pastes a migration or grant for review, or mentions security/PCI/PII.' It also notes that input is never stored. While it provides clear usage context, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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