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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds materially useful context beyond that: results are permission-filtered ('Only tables the user can access are returned'), which tells the agent the output may be incomplete relative to the actual database.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the query-writing caveat, then the permission caveat. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by describing the return shape (tables, columns, data types) and the access-scoping behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are paginated for very large schemas.

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 100% and the single parameter points back to draxlr_list_databases, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax detail about databaseId itself; the `name` guidance concerns the response, not the input.

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 and resource ('Get a database's schema') and immediately specifies the payload: tables, columns, and data types. This is clearly distinct from draxlr_list_databases, which only yields IDs, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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 clause 'so you can write correct SQL' establishes the intended moment of use, and the note to reference table/column `name` rather than display names is actionable invocation guidance. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the workflow context is clear.

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