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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine value: the password is generated randomly for the agent and surfaced in the response. This tells the agent both that it should not supply a password and where to find it. Missing are permission requirements and any failure-mode behavior.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the create action and then the two key facts (linking, generated password). No filler, nothing redundant.

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 should explain the return, and it does state the password appears in the response — the most important output fact for this tool. It is largely complete for a 3-param creation tool, though it could say more about what else the response returns.

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 login parameter is documented in exceptional depth in the schema itself (character rules, length caveat, Plesk failure mode). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that the database is pre-existing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Legt einen neuen Datenbank-User an') with an added scope detail: it links the user to an existing database. This makes the outcome clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like create_database or delete_database_user, so it stops 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?

There is an implicit prerequisite — the target database must already exist ('bestehende Datenbank') — but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing. An agent gets no guidance on how this differs from create_database or when another tool is preferable.

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