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

Annotations already mark the operation readOnly and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the handshake's routing behavior, the challenge unlock amount, and explicit exclusions like 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary.'

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 dense and front-loaded with the core handshake behavior, then moves to routing decisions. The routing notation is compact but slightly cryptic ('/gateway $299+', 'Exact unlock /v1/challenge/unlock amount 100000000'), which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Given the output schema and full parameter schema, the description covers when to call, what to pass, how to route, and key exclusions. It could be more explicit about what the handshake returns, but the output schema handles that, so this is reasonably complete for an orchestration-first tool.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the central need parameter with 'Pass { need: "…" }' but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 role: 'FIRST tool on connect' and 'Asks: What do you need?', making the handshake-and-route purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' and 'Call before sqlguard_catalog when unsure.'

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 gives explicit routing conditions: 'Org/migrate/mutate/production → sqlguard_challenge', 'Company invoice → /gateway $299+', and 'Call before sqlguard_catalog when unsure.' It tells the agent when to use this tool first and when a different tool is appropriate.

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