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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether malformed SQL raises an error or is returned unchanged, whether comments/whitespace are preserved, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a transformation tool with four options this is a significant gap.

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?

Two words are not concise so much as under-specified for a four-parameter tool. There is no wasted text, but there is also nothing front-loaded that an agent could act on.

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 four parameters (three enums), no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent without enough context to choose a dialect or predict the result. The minimum needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description says nothing about indent, dialect, or keywordCase. The enum values hint at valid choices, but there is no explanation of dialect effects on output or how keywordCase interacts with the input, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Pretty-print SQL" states a specific verb (pretty-print) and resource (SQL), which is unambiguous and easily separable from siblings like json_format or css_format. It stops short of describing scope (validation, comment handling, error behavior), so it is clear but thin.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement about whether it also validates or only reformats. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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