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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it is heuristic, not an enforcement mechanism; it has explicit limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result); and it is deterministic. This gives the agent a clear operational profile.

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?

The content is front-loaded and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, when, when-not, side effects, determinism, and limits. However, the description duplicates the same information in Spanish and English (with the English version partly deferred to the inputSchema description), which adds length without adding meaning for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, heuristic caveats, explicit non-goals, limits, determinism, and side effects. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that it expects SQL text (any dialect) with an example and maxLength. The description explains how the SQL is analyzed but does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: statically checks whether SQL only reads, and enumerates exactly what it flags (write/DDL keywords, CTEs, SELECT INTO, locking, EXPLAIN ANALYZE, risky functions). It also explicitly names a sibling tool (regex-test) that it is not, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 says when to use it ('Cuándo: hay que revisar si un SQL... escribe datos antes de que llegue a una base de datos') and when not to use it ('No para: ... regex-test'). The alternative is named, and the heuristic limitation is stated with the recommended enforcement mechanism (read-only database roles).

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