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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The phrase 'non-secret' adds genuine context by signaling that secret values are redacted in the response, which is not derivable from the annotations. Beyond that one clause there is no disclosure of return shape, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the 'non-secret' qualifier is placed where it matters. It is efficient but arguably under-sized for an 8-parameter tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have described what the Data API config contains, but it does not. Combined with the required project_ref and the beon_* plumbing parameters going entirely unexplained, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including a required project_ref and an enum-constrained beon_connection_id, yet the description mentions no parameter at all. With such a wide coverage gap the description is expected to compensate and does nothing, so this falls below the minimum-viable bar.

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 ('Data API configuration'), which maps to the rest_config sibling family and separates it from supabase_get_auth_config / supabase_get_database_config / supabase_get_storage_config. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly scopes itself apart from them, so differentiation is inferred from the noun rather than stated.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project must exist / be unpaused), and never points to supabase_update_rest_config as the mutation counterpart. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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