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

With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: idempotent (harmless re-run), returns per-step result, surfaces Neon error messages inline, and restricted to operator requiring nsec-signed proof. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Description is compact and each sentence adds value. Could slightly improve structure by front-loading more critical info (e.g., parameter explanation), but overall efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, usage context, idempotency, restrictions, and error handling. However, the missing explanation for dpop_token creates a significant gap, making it incomplete for a tool requiring authentication proof.

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 has one parameter (dpop_token) with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description provides no explanation of its purpose or usage. The agent is left without guidance on this critical authentication parameter, severely hindering correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool re-runs ensure_schema() on every NeonVault, a specific verb-resource combination for diagnosis/recovery. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which do not involve schema restoration.

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 explains when to use: when Neon HTTP SQL API returns persistent 4xx errors and schema/grants are suspected wrong. Mentions idempotency for safe re-run, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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