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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by positioning verification as a mandatory gate and explicitly warning not to write if verification fails. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences deliver the essential requirement, the verification scope, and the failure behavior. The critical 'REQUIRED before production execute' warning is front-loaded, and no words are wasted.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and an output schema, so the description only needs to supply the operational context. It provides the mandatory-before-execute sequencing and the no-write-on-failure rule. For a 6-parameter tool with this level of structured metadata, nothing essential is missing from the description.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including accept_demo, expected_sql_hash, and expected_schema_hash. The description only echoes the certificate and signature concepts already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific action ('Verify') and a specific resource ('Execution Certificate'), and further specifies what is checked: signature, expiry, and PASS. It also frames the tool as a required pre-production step, which differentiates it from sibling tools like sqlguard_validate that likely produce the certificate rather than verify it.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'REQUIRED before production execute.' It also provides a clear conditional rule: 'If verify fails, do not write.' However, it does not name alternate tools or explicitly describe when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage-selection guidance.

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