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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the return shape (AST summary, statement count, per-statement types), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits parse-failure behavior, which keeps it short of 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?

A single sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and the return content following immediately; nothing is wasted. The phrasing 'how SQL parses' is slightly circular, but the sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough: the trigger to use it and the shape of what comes back. Only error/edge behavior on unparseable input is left unspecified.

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?

There is one parameter, 'sql', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, dialect, or multi-statement guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (parse) and resource (SQL) and goes further by naming the output payload: an AST summary with statement count and statement types. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling analyze_sql, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 to know how SQL parses' is a usage trigger, but it essentially restates the purpose rather than defining when this tool beats analyze_sql, validate_sql, or lint_sql. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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