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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it operates without a database connection or execution, and it specifically flags destructive DDL, unfiltered writes, and migration atomicity concerns. This goes beyond the annotations by describing analytical behavior.

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 25-word sentence that front-loads the main action ('Statically parse caller-supplied SQL') and conveys all key aspects efficiently. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key analytical capabilities. It does not explain how dialect affects analysis or how invalid SQL is handled, but these may be covered by the output schema. It is sufficient for a user to select this tool appropriately.

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 implicitly describes the 'sql' parameter as 'caller-supplied SQL', but it does not mention the 'dialect' parameter or explain how it affects parsing. With two parameters, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with specific verbs ('parse', 'inventory', 'flag') and identifies the resource ('caller-supplied SQL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like code-change-review by emphasizing static analysis without database connection or execution, making its purpose 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 implies the tool is used for reviewing SQL changes statically but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention sibling tools. It gives context (no DB execution) but lacks direct guidance on selection.

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