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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description discloses that no Execution Certificate is issued, that CDP Bazaar may retain stale paid rows, and that Session/Cert is 'OFF TABLE as primary.' These are non-obvious behavioral details not captured by the annotations, significantly enhancing transparency.

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 a dense, jargon-laden block lacking clear structure. Phrases like 'CDP Bazaar may retain a stale paid row; Fly wire is free' and 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' are confusing and do not contribute to tool invocation clarity. While short, it is not effectively concise or well-organized.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers key non-obvious aspects: no Execution Certificate, authorization path via sqlguard_challenge, potential stale data, and a reference to GET /v1/effects. It misses an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but overall provides sufficient context for a risk-tip 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful specificity to the sql parameter by enumerating risk patterns (DROP/TRUNCATE/DELETE-without-WHERE) and reinforcing the 'risk-score not authorize' nature. It doesn't elaborate on agent_id or schema_ddl, but they are self-explanatory from 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a free risk tip for mutating SQL (DROP/TRUNCATE/DELETE-without-WHERE) and explicitly states it never issues an Execution Certificate, distinguishing it from authorization-focused tools like sqlguard_challenge. The title 'Free risk tip (not authorize)' reinforces this specific 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?

It implies usage for risk assessment before authorization, and explicitly mentions sqlguard_challenge as the subsequent authorization step. However, it lacks explicit 'use when' or 'do not use' statements relative to other siblings, and the phrase 'Session/Cert OFF TABLE as primary' is cryptic, preventing a perfect score.

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