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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the tool generates a one-time link, does not transmit the connection string via chat, and returns dialect-specific instructions. The mssql caveat about Entra authentication and the prohibition on constructing mssql:// URLs are non-obvious behaviors. This goes well beyond the basic readOnly/destructive hints.

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 four sentences and covers purpose, input caveat, response handling, and an important dialect-specific warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes necessary information, though the mssql section is somewhat lengthy.

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 complexity (two-step registration, dialect-specific auth, output fields to surface), the description is thorough. It explains the workflow, the security property, the response fields, and the mssql edge case. The presence of an output schema and clear annotations further fills in any remaining details, making the description complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (name with example, dialect as enum with description), giving 100% coverage. The description adds some parameter-specific behavior for mssql (Azure SQL uses Entra, so the connection string excludes credentials), which is extra semantic context beyond the schema. However, most of the description focuses on the response and workflow rather than defining parameters.

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's function: obtaining a secure one-time link to register a new database connection, and lists supported dialects (postgres, mysql, mssql). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by clarifying that it does not accept a connection string, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides strong usage guidance: it explains the two-step flow (get link, then paste connection string in a web form), warns that the connection string is never sent through chat, and instructs the agent to surface specific response fields verbatim. It also includes a critical warning for mssql to avoid constructing an mssql:// URL. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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