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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful scope context by naming the four problem categories it inspects, but says nothing about result ordering, severity, volume/pagination, or whether the analysis is expensive or cached.

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 zero filler; the resource and the enumerated check categories are the first things the agent reads. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema and no description of the return shape, and with the required project_id undocumented, an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently and interpret results.

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 only 50%: dialect carries its own description, but the required project_id has none. The description does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required field or explain what 'current schema' scoping means relative to project_id.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('design problems in the current schema') and enumerates the check categories (missing keys, unindexed relationships, type mismatches, engine limits), which effectively separates it from get_schema and list_proposals. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, keeping it just below the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants a diagnostic sweep of a project's schema. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer get_schema or propose_change instead, and no mention of prerequisites.

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