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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the auth mechanism ("Management OAuth"), a small but genuine piece of context; it says nothing about pagination, return shape, or how project scoping affects results.

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, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, but nothing in it 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 a tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema and no explanation of the beon_* approval context, the description is thin. Annotations cover read-only safety, but the agent still lacks guidance on scoping, pagination, and the required plumbing parameters.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them — yet it names none. The required project_ref and the approval_id / beon_context / beon_environment plumbing are left to the bare schema, which at least supplies types, enums and patterns but no intent.

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 (List) and resource (storage bucket metadata), which lets an agent distinguish it from supabase_create_storage_bucket, supabase_delete_storage_bucket and supabase_update_storage_bucket by name alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with supabase_list_storage_objects, so it stops short of full 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as listing objects inside a bucket rather than the buckets themselves. The agent is left to 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.