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

With annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) the description adds crucial behavioral context: it burns prepaid credits, a financial side-effect not captured by annotations. The safety warning 'Never execute FAIL or unverified certs' also adds risk disclosure. 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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the key identity as 'Legacy prepaid burn path'. Every sentence contributes, though terms like 'OFF TABLE as wealth' are cryptic and slightly wasteful. Overall compact and structured well.

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 output schema exists and parameters are fully described, the description covers the tool's role in a broader flow, its legacy status, and safety warnings. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it, despite some cryptic phrasing that could confuse.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter (agent_id, schema_ddl, sql). The description adds no extra meaning beyond noting 'prepaid credits to debit' and 'Exact $100 unlock' for the production path, but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Legacy prepaid burn path' that 'burns prepaid credits only', suggesting it validates SQL via credit burn. However, the exact action ('validate SQL') is only in the title, and the description's focus on 'burn path' and 'OFF TABLE as wealth' obscures what the tool actually does. It distinguishes from production siblings but remains vague about the core function.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'For production authorize use sqlguard_challenge → Exact $100 unlock → sqlguard_verify' directly names alternatives and states when not to use this tool. It also warns 'Never execute FAIL or unverified certs', giving clear boundary conditions.

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