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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real value: the six analyses run concurrently and results are merged into a single composite report. The MCP Apps interactive-rendering note is useful host-dependent behavior. It does not mention latency/cost of fanning out six analyses, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by the mechanical behavior. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 returns, and 'one composite report' plus the list of constituent analyses covers that adequately. The only gap is the report's internal structure, which is implied but not specified.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'sql' fully. The description adds no syntax, dialect, or size guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('complete review of a SQL query') and enumerates exactly which six sibling capabilities it composes (validate, parse, metadata, security, lint, format). An agent can instantly tell this apart from the single-purpose siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants a complete review' gives a clear triggering condition, and the enumeration of the six sub-analyses implicitly signals that the individual sibling tools exist for narrower needs. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer validate_sql or lint_sql alone, so no true exclusion guidance.

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