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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure: it never issues an Execution Certificate and mentions a possible stale paid row in CDP Bazaar. However, 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' is cryptic and the side-effect caveat is vague, leaving the behavioral picture only partially clearer.

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 short and front-loads the core free-risk-tip purpose, earning it points for brevity. However, it packs multiple pricing and retention clauses ('Exact unlock $100 OR Gateway invoice $299', 'CDP Bazaar may retain a stale paid row; Fly wire is free') that are tangential for invoking the tool and obscure the structured message.

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 an output schema present and all parameters documented in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adds the critical no-authorization caveat and points to effects via GET /v1/effects, which is enough for invocation. The cryptic 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' and unclear stale-row statement create residual ambiguity that keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains sql, agent_id, and schema_ddl meaningfully. Baseline is 3. The description adds one useful semantic detail by listing examples of mutating SQL (DROP/TRUNCATE/DELETE-without-WHERE), but it does not compensate further beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies a specific behavior: 'FREE mutating-SQL policy risk tip (DROP/TRUNCATE/DELETE-without-WHERE)' and explicitly says it does not authorize ('not authorize', 'NEVER issues an Execution Certificate'). It distinguishes itself from sqlguard_challenge, a sibling, making the tool's role clear. The phrase 'risk tip' is slightly nonstandard but is anchored by concrete examples.

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 clear context: use this for a free risk assessment rather than authorization, and explicitly routes authorization to 'sqlguard_challenge' with pricing. It also points to 'GET /v1/effects' for more detail. It does not fully enumerate when it should be avoided beyond the authorization case, but the main alternative is named.

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