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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds one useful behavioral pearl — that only 'non-secret' configuration is returned, implying secrets are excluded — but says nothing about auth/permission requirements or return shape. Given the annotation coverage, this is an adequate but not rich contribution.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the verb/resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the parameter complexity it must carry.

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 and zero param descriptions, one sentence is far from complete. It does not explain the beon_* governance params or how the returned configuration is structured, leaving the agent under-equipped.

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 bears the full burden of explaining them — yet it mentions none. project_ref (the only required param) and the seven beon_* context/approval params are entirely undocumented outside their JSON types.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Postgres configuration) and qualifies the scope with 'selected non-secret'. This distinguishes it from supabase_update_database_config, but it does not differentiate itself from the many other get_*_config siblings (auth, rest, pooler, storage).

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus supabase_update_database_config or the other config readers. The agent must infer usage purely from the name; no prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are given.

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