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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond those: it fail-closes before execution, is a gate rather than an executor, and issues nothing. This clarifies the tool's side effects and safety posture well. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 description is compact, front-loading the tool identity and role, then giving endpoint usage, conditional requirements, and behavioral guarantees. Every sentence carries meaningful information, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent consumption.

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 tool with five parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it conveys purpose, required inputs, conditional mandate, and non-executing behavior. The optional schema_ddl parameter is not mentioned, but the schema fully documents it. An output schema exists, so lacking return-value detail is not a gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds context beyond the schema by naming the required request components ('certificate+signature+sql') and the conditional mandate requirement ('when BIND'). This helps an agent understand the request shape without opening the schema. It does not detail all parameters, but the schema already covers them.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an authorization gate for mutating SQL, stating it fail-closes before execution and issues nothing. It distinguishes this tool from execution or issuance tools by emphasizing it does not execute or issue anything. Some jargon like 'free portable authorize bus' slightly obscures the core action, but the overall purpose is understandable.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: any mutating agent tool should pass through this gate before execution. It makes the fail-closed behavior explicit, which tells an agent when this tool is mandatory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional mandate and 'before execute' guidance are sufficient directional context.

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