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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — only non-secret configuration is returned — which tells the agent not to expect secrets in the response. It still says nothing about return shape, pagination, or required permissions.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key scope qualifier, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should do more: it omits all parameter semantics and any hint of what the returned configuration contains. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent still lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — and it explains none. The single required parameter (project_ref) and the platform-injected beon_* context parameters are undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read ... authentication configuration') with a useful scope qualifier ('non-secret'), so an agent knows this is a read of auth settings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling get_*_config tools (database, rest, storage, pooler) or name supabase_update_auth_config as its write counterpart, leaving that separation to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of the update_auth_config sibling, no prerequisites, no note on when an agent would want auth config versus database or REST config. The agent must infer the trigger entirely from the name.

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