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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: idempotent statements, breadcrumb rewrite, per-concern step return with inline Neon errors, and an operator-only auth requirement. These details go well beyond the schema and help an agent understand safety and output.

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?

Four tight sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage, behavior, and restriction. No filler, and each 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 diagnostic/recovery tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, behavior, and auth. The only gap is the unexplained dpop_token parameter, but the output schema relieves it of explaining return values.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and one parameter, dpop_token, which the description never mentions. The auth note ('requires proof (nsec-signed)') does not explain the dpop_token parameter or its format/default, leaving the parameter semantics undocumented.

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 opening line states a specific action (prepare the operator's database schema again) and resource (schema), and the diagnostic/recovery framing distinguishes it from siblings like excalibur_service_status. However, the phrase 'ignoring the breadcrumb' is metaphorical and adds little; the purpose is clear but slightly obscured.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when Neon keeps answering 4xx and the operator suspects a table or grant is missing.' It also notes idempotency and the restricted operator requirement. No alternatives or when-not conditions are named, so it stops short of 5.

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