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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a confirmation flow requiring explicit overage consent and returns a price. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like whether it is destructive or read-only, though the 'create' verb implies mutation.

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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second explains the workflow. Every word is necessary, no repetition. Information is front-loaded.

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 explains the two-step process (initial call returns confirmation_required with price, second call with accept_overage_usd) and the parameter roles. It does not specify the success response format, but the workflow is clear enough for an agent to handle correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains the 'accept_overage_usd' parameter's purpose (only after user approval) and clarifies that 'pro_token' is optional if the connection already sends authorization. This provides valuable context.

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 clearly specifies creating a new always-on Pro database, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_database' (likely free tier) and 'pro_attach_database'. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on the overage consent workflow: the tool returns a price, and the agent must relay it and retry with 'accept_overage_usd' after user approval. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context implies 'create_database' for free tier usage.

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