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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the trailing 'Read-only.' merely repeats them. Beyond that, the description discloses the freshness window of the data ('connection modes seen in the last 30 days') and that the response includes 'next steps' — useful behavior an agent would not otherwise know.

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 dense sentence plus a two-word trailing statement; there is little waste. It is somewhat run-on with a long comma-separated inventory, but each item listed is meaningful to an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 it does so thoroughly, including freshness and next steps. Minor gaps remain (response size, whether 'next steps' are prescriptive), but nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional database_id already documents scoping ('Without it, every database'). The description references 'each database' but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: plan, observe/monitor mode, each database with connection modes from the last 30 days, proxy and telemetry health, agent access policies, key counts per scope, and next steps. That is far more specific than the 'Setup status' title. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it replaces, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

'Call it first, so a setup only does what is missing' gives a clear invocation context: this is the entry point before any setup or config work. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_config, plan_config_change) or stating when not to call it.

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