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 the meaningful detail that results come back 'without credentials,' signaling the output excludes secrets — useful context beyond the annotations, though it omits pagination or return-shape details.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool exposing 8 parameters.

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 tool with 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation-level parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell from the description what project_ref expects or what the beon_* parameters do.

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 at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters and does none of it. The required project_ref is not mentioned, nor are the beon_* context parameters or the two enumerated fields.

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 pairs the verb 'List' with a clear resource ('development and production environments'), which maps to Supabase branches. However, it uses the term 'environments' rather than 'branches' (the tool name), which risks confusion with siblings like railway_list_environments, and it offers no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_list_projects, supabase_get_project, or supabase_create_branch/delete_branch. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the name.

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