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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial behavioural fact those annotations do not: the tool itself does not build a database, it produces a filled link, and the actual generation, auto-layout and validation (type matching, missing index) happen in the designer. It also discloses the auto-creation of a missing FK column, which is non-obvious side-effect-like behaviour. No permission, rate-limit or expiry information about the link is given.

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?

There is no filler, and it is front-loaded with the deliverable (the filled link). However, the entire body is a single run-on sentence cramming diagram generation, validation topics, seven export formats and the FK rule together, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what comes back (a link) and what that link unlocks, which is the main thing an agent needs. Remaining gaps are modest: the link's lifetime/format and the schema's hard limits (80 tables, 100 columns, 200 relations) are not mentioned.

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 33%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does so only partially: it explains that relations carry the foreign key column and that the referenced column defaults to the primary key. It says nothing about the many undocumented flags (unique, not_null, auto_increment, enum_values, on_delete, relation type) or the cardinality limits baked into the schema.

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 names a specific deliverable: a pre-filled link to the Kódvéna browser-based database designer built from tables, columns and foreign keys, with an ER diagram, validation and multiple export formats. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of contrasting with any sibling tool, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can place it.

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 rather than stated: you supply tables/columns/relations when you want a diagram plus DDL/ORM schemas. One genuine usage rule is given ('specify the foreign key column in the relation; if the table lacks it, the designer creates it'), which is helpful. There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named.

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