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 contributes one extra fact beyond that: secrets are excluded from the returned configuration ('non-secret'), which is a genuinely useful boundary. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or scope of the returned config.

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 no filler; it respects brevity. The terseness is partly under-specification rather than efficient concision, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. Annotations cover the safety profile, but nothing explains what the config contains, what the required project_ref identifies, or how the beon_* context parameters behave.

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 at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. The required project_ref and the seven beon_* / approval_id context parameters are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess what they are.

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 (Storage configuration) with a meaningful scope qualifier ('non-secret'). This distinguishes it from the other supabase_*_config readers (auth, database, rest, pooler) by resource, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 the sibling config-inspection tools, no prerequisites, no mention that a project_ref is required. The agent must infer usage 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.