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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency ('a clean re-run is harmless'), the side effect ('the breadcrumb is rewritten at the end'), the auth requirement ('RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed)'), and the return shape ('one step per concern, with Neon's own error text inline for any that failed'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting context in tight sentences. Mild jargon ('breadcrumb') and a slightly redundant 'Prepare... again' phrasing cost it a perfect score, but nothing is wasted.

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 restricted, side-effecting recovery tool, the description covers trigger conditions, safety (idempotent), auth, side effects, and return semantics. An output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated, and the description is nonetheless complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter (dpop_token) has 0% schema coverage and is never named or explained in the description. The line 'requires proof (nsec-signed)' gestures at authentication semantics but does not clarify what dpop_token is, its format, or that it is optional-by-schema yet required in practice.

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 action on a specific resource ('Prepare this operator's database schema again') and frames it as the schema-restore/recovery operation, which no sibling tool performs. An agent can distinguish it from credential, coupon, or design tools at a glance.

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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Diagnostic / recovery tool for when Neon keeps answering 4xx and the operator suspects a table or grant is missing.' This tells the agent precisely when to reach for it, though it names no alternative and gives no explicit 'do not use when' case.

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