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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'read-only SQL query'. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing enforcement rules (alias-only, default.* rejected) and result scoping to the workspace. It does not mention rate limits, query cost, or timeouts, so it falls short of 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the hard constraint, then scoping, followed by the underlying endpoint for reference. Every sentence carries information; the trailing endpoint string is slightly extraneous but harmless.

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 single-parameter SQL tool with no output schema, the description supplies the aliases needed to write a valid query and the rejection behavior to avoid. It stops short of listing available columns or return shape, which an agent must infer or discover, leaving a modest 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 coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating the five legal alias names, which is a constraint the schema does not encode and which an agent must know to construct a valid query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only SQL query over key-verification analytics.' This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are CRUD operations on keys, identities, APIs, permissions and roles. No ambiguity about what the tool returns conceptually.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: the query must reference one of five named public aliases, and physical default.* table names are rejected. It also states results are workspace-scoped. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over other analytics approaches, but no sibling competes for this use case.

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