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 declares idempotency ('a clean re-run is harmless'), the breadcrumb side effect ('rewritten at the end'), the return shape ('one step per concern, with Neon's own error text inline'), and a hard auth requirement ('RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed)').

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then trigger, then behavior, then restriction. Efficient overall, with only the unexplained 'breadcrumb' term costing readability.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still helpfully summarizes the return value ('one step per concern'). Auth restriction and idempotency are covered, but the lone input parameter remains completely undescribed for a restricted operator-only recovery tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'dpop_token' is never mentioned in the description. The mention of 'nsec-signed' proof hints at the auth context but does not explain what dpop_token is, its format, or whether the empty default is acceptable — leaving the parameter effectively 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare this operator's database schema again'), so an agent knows this re-applies a schema. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'authority_repair_operator_schema', and the phrase 'ignoring the breadcrumb' is unexplained jargon that muddies rather than clarifies the purpose.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'when Neon keeps answering 4xx and the operator suspects a table or grant is missing'. That is clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus repair_operator_schema), so it is not a full 5.

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