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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure not in the annotations: connection strings are excluded from the response, which matters because pooler configs normally contain them. It stops short of describing response shape or rate limits.

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 sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information.

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 a read-only config getter with annotations covering safety, the high-level statement of what is returned is adequate, and no output schema is needed. However, with 8 undocumented parameters and no parameter guidance, the definition is thin relative to the tool's surface area.

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 schema contributes no meaning at all. The description never mentions project_ref (the only required param) or the beon_*/approval plumbing params, leaving the agent with no guidance on what any of them do.

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 (pooler config) and narrows scope to 'sizing and mode', so an agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not explicitly name the sibling supabase_update_pooler_config, but the get/update pairing makes the read-vs-write distinction obvious.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what an agent would do with the result. Usage is only implied by the read-only framing.

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