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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral context: the mandatory two-step ordering, that available_actions is subsumed by accounts, and that action details contain the exact request body and required identifiers. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. invalid action names) or result shape, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Step-numbered, front-loaded structure that mirrors the required call sequence, with no filler sentences. Minor cost: the interleaving of required steps and optional calls makes the reading order slightly less crisp than a required-then-optional split would be.

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 5-parameter dispatcher with an output schema present and only readOnlyHint in annotations, the description is sufficient: it explains the full intended call sequence, what each mode yields, and the mandatory intermediate call. Return values needn't be explained because an output schema exists.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: the `request` enum values are each explained, `actions` is shown with example syntax, and brand_id/workspace_id are tied to the brands request. The `platform` parameter is never mentioned, and it never states when brand_id/workspace_id become required, leaving a gap.

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 states a specific resource (PostgreSQL/InsightfulPipe request planning metadata) and enumerates the four request modes with what each returns, so an agent understands this is a discovery/setup tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like execute_action or query_data, relying on the reader to infer that this is the prerequisite step.

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 an explicit ordered workflow: Step 1 accounts, Step 2 actions_details with concrete example values, and marks actions_details as REQUIRED before querying. The optional calls are labeled as optional and one is flagged as redundant with the accounts response, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed.

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