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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no secret configuration is involved, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about permissions, output shape, or whether secrets are omitted from the response.

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 economical sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. It is well-sized, though its brevity is partly the cause of the specification gaps elsewhere.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description does hint at what is returned ('identity and domain mappings'). However, with 9 parameters at 0% coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.

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 9 parameters, and the description explains none of them – not the required project_ref/provider_id, nor the unexplained beon_* parameters. It gives no compensation for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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 (Inspect) and resource (SAML/SSO provider identity and domain mappings), which clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with supabase_list_sso_providers, but a single-provider vs list distinction is inferable from the singular noun.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names the closest alternative (supabase_list_sso_providers, which returns all providers). The phrase 'without secret configuration' hints at a constraint but does not translate into selection guidance.

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