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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: the connection string is stored as an encrypted secret, is injected on next deploy, is NEVER returned, and authentication is required. It does not mention whether provisioning is asynchronous, whether an existing DATABASE_URL is overwritten, or what result is returned, but the core side effects are well covered.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most important side-effect warning and the required/optional parameters. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, authentication, and parameter essentials, but there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns on success or failure. It also omits whether provisioning is synchronous or asynchronous, which an agent would need to know to verify completion. This is a notable gap for a provisioning operation.

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 low at 33%, so the description compensates by documenting appId as required and engine as optional with a default of 'postgres'. The sessionKey parameter is already described in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. Together, the description and schema adequately cover all three parameters.

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 action, 'Provision a managed Postgres database for an Osir app', with a clear resource and target. It further disambiguates itself by explaining the connection string becomes the app's DATABASE_URL secret, which separates it from generic database or secret-management tools.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is for provisioning a Postgres database for an Osir app, requires authentication, and the DATABASE_URL is injected on the next osirAppDeploy, implying it should be called before deployment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended workflow is clear.

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