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 earns credit by disclosing the return shape that no output schema provides, including the `type` enum values ('raw' vs 'builder') and the builder-only `tableId` field.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and then the return contract and the downstream chaining. Every clause carries usable information.

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?

With no output schema and only one trivially documented parameter, the description fills exactly the gap that matters by describing the returned fields and their semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents `databaseId` and its provenance from draxlr_list_databases. The description adds no further detail about the input parameter itself, only about the id it returns, so this lands at the high-coverage baseline.

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 ('List the saved queries for a Draxlr database') and immediately enumerates what each item contains (id, name, description, SQL, type, tableId). An agent can distinguish this from draxlr_list_databases and draxlr_get_query 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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward by saying the returned id is used as `queryId` for draxlr_add_query_to_dashboard, draxlr_run_saved_query, and draxlr_export_query. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. to fetch a single query, use draxlr_get_query), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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