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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior Mend. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns structured findings with evidence and confidence, and it discloses a price point of $0.25 per migration. This informs agent decisions about cost and expected output without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool analyzes and what it detects, the second describes the output, and the third gives usage timing plus cost. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or fluff.

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)Skip and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers the main invocation needs: required parameters, dialect choices, expected findings, use case, and cost. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on how or why to provide the optional context object, which is a minor omission given it is not required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'migration' is SQL and that 'dialect' refers to Postgres, Supabase Postgres, or Prisma/Postgres variants. However, it provides no explanation of the optional 'context' parameter or its subfields (tableSizes, postgresVersion, applicationCompatibilityNotes), leaving part of the schema semantically under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('Postgres, Supabase Postgres, or Prisma/Postgres migration SQL') and enumerates the exact analysis concerns: destructive operations, lock/data-loss risk, backwards-compatibility hazards, rollback issues, and safer sequencing. This strongly differentiates the tool from siblings like dependency_risk_scanner or code_diff_verifier.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use before applying a database migration to identify destructive or risky steps.' It provides clear context for invocation, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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