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

Annotations already declare a safe read, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: metadata-only output with an explicit credential exclusion list (password, Secret Manager id, proxy token), the null-versus-error distinction on unprovisioned apps, and a tenancy boundary that holds even for org admins. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from `readOnlyHint`/`destructiveHint`.

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 return shape is front-loaded in the first sentence and the safety/tenancy caveats follow in descending importance. It is dense with parentheticals and line-wrapped fragments, but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it enumerates every field group plus the null case and the hint. Combined with the credential exclusions and admin-visibility limit, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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%, and the schema already documents both `app_id` (from `apps_list`) and `organization_id` (slug resolution within an org). The description restates the `app_id` provenance without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the CALLING user's own developer database for an app') and immediately scopes what is returned (status, error_message, storage usage/limit, timestamps, migration runs). It distinguishes itself from `dev_database_migrate` and `apps_list` by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: fetch metadata here, then use the Meridian CLI (`meridian dev`) to actually connect, and expect `dev_database: null` plus a hint when nothing is provisioned. It does not explicitly contrast against `dev_database_reset` or `database_schema_get`, so the alternative-routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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