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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it performs indentation and keyword casing. This is consistent and adds minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., handling of invalid SQL, dialect-specific behavior) beyond what is expected for a formatting tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It wastes no space and is easy to scan.

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 simple formatting tool with two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it. No major information gaps remain.

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% with both 'sql' and 'indent' parameters documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Format and beautify') with a clear resource ('SQL queries') and outlines the exact transformations (indentation, keyword casing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transform_code_format or text_json_format by explicitly targeting SQL.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('cleaning up inline SQL for code reviews, documentation, or debugging'), providing actionable context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the usage scenarios are specific enough to guide selection.

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