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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly states 'Never executes' and details dialect-specific behaviors (pg `USING`, mssql `sp_rename`, mysql `MODIFY COLUMN`). It also advises checking the response `dialect` field before manual edits, adding valuable post-invocation guidance that annotations do not convey.

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 dense but every clause contributes: purpose, dialect coverage, safety note, and a concrete warning against hand-translation. The enumeration of dialect specifics is slightly long but useful, making it efficient for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Combined with a rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose, dialect behavior, non-execution safety, and post-invocation guidance. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from using 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both `intent` and `connection` have descriptive text, with connection even explaining how to resolve names via `list_connections`. The tool description adds high-level dialect context but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with 'Generate dialect-correct ALTER TABLE migration SQL + rollback from a plain-English intent', which clearly identifies the verb (generate), resource (migration SQL + rollback), and input (plain-English intent). No sibling tool focuses on generating migrations, so it is well-distinguished.

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 gives practical context: it never executes, so an agent knows to treat it as a code-generation step. It warns about dialect mismatches and checking the `dialect` field, which guides safe usage. While it does not name explicit alternatives, the sibling list contains no other migration-generation tool, so this is adequate.

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