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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description's burden is lighter. The word 'current' hints at live state, but there is no disclosure of what the status values mean, how long an in-progress upgrade takes, or whether the result changes over time.

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 is efficiently sized, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps rather than compensating for them.

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 should describe what 'status' returns (e.g., pending, in-progress, completed, failed), and it does not. Combined with 0% parameter documentation, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently or interpret the result.

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?

With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning and it says nothing. It does not explain what project_ref identifies, what the beon_* context/resume/release parameters do, or why approval_id might be needed for a status check.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('database upgrade status'), which is distinguishable from siblings like supabase_get_upgrade_eligibility and supabase_upgrade_database. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related eligibility tool, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 use this versus supabase_get_upgrade_eligibility (checking if an upgrade is possible) or supabase_upgrade_database (performing it). The agent gets no condition or alternative routing guidance.

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