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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description still contributes real behavioral context: the atomic swap semantics and the failure contract ("the previous catalog stays in service and the failure is reported"). It does not mention cost, latency, or whether concurrent refreshes can collide, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the failure guarantee. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it and what to expect on failure. Nothing material is missing.

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 are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter and instead spends its words on behavior.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Re-read the database structure") and enumerates the kinds of changes it picks up (new tables, changed columns, changed grants), so the purpose is unambiguous. It never names or contrasts itself with siblings like select_schema, describe_object, or list_objects, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this tool is for picking up schema drift, but there is no explicit "call this after DDL changes" statement and no comparison to select_schema or list_objects. A reader gets the context but must construct the when-to-use rule themselves.

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