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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers richly: idempotency via CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS, per-step return behavior, error surfacing behavior with a version-specific nuance (0.31.0 reading the SQL error body), and the nsec-signed proof requirement. This is exemplary disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 paragraphs, each earning its place: core action, triggering condition, idempotency/return behavior, and security restriction. Front-loaded with the action verb and followed by the decision-relevant context. Dense but not verbose given zero annotation coverage.

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, return values need no further explanation. The description covers success behavior (harmless re-run), failure behavior (inline error surfacing), and access restriction (operator-only proof). The only residual gap is the unexplained dpop_token parameter, which is optional with a default. Nearly complete for a recovery tool with rich annotations elsewhere.

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 0% and the description never mentions dpop_token. However, the parameter is optional with a default value, its name is self-descriptive, and the description's mention of 'nsec-signed' proof provides relevant auth context. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but for a single defaulted auth-token parameter this is a minor gap rather than a blocking gap.

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 ('Re-run ensure_schema() on every NeonVault'), then characterizes the tool as a diagnostic/recovery tool. The description distinguishes it from the large sibling list by naming the exact failure scenario it addresses rather than just restating the name.

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 states when to use it: when the Neon HTTP SQL API returns persistent 4xx errors and the operator suspects schema/grants. It also says it is restricted to the operator. It does not name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-not conditions, but the triggering condition is specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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