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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructive=false and openWorld=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return values are secrets requiring careful handling, and one of them routes through a pooler. It does not explain why a mere read is marked non-read-only (e.g., credential exposure/audit implications), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 that delivers the resource, the two return fields, their distinct purposes, and the secret-handling warning with no filler.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so by enumerating password, url, and pooledUrl. It leaves out edge cases such as missing/nonexistent databases or whether the password can be revealed only once, but is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from list_services. The description adds no further meaning about the id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (a Postgres database's password and connection strings) and enumerates the two returned credentials, url and pooledUrl, with their distinct roles. It is clearly differentiated from siblings such as rotate_database_password or get_database_stats, though it phrases the action as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

It gives useful within-result guidance — use url for migrations, pooledUrl for apps with many short connections — which is real selection advice. However, it gives no guidance on when to call this tool at all versus rotate_database_password, apply_database_password, or get_service, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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