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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses meaningful runtime behavior: row counts are counted in the background and refreshed every 30 minutes, rows can be null with rows_note 'counting…' after server start, and the likely error state 'database has not been built yet' is explained. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but organized with clear sections and a front-loaded purpose. Some redundancy exists between 'Read this before writing a query_db statement' and 'Use when: preparing a query_db,' but the density is largely justified given the tool's role as a schema-discovery prerequisite.

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?

With zero parameters and a provided output schema, the description goes well beyond the minimum by listing key tables, views, row-count behavior, example SQL queries, usage boundaries, and failure modes. An agent can confidently decide when to call this tool and what to do with its results.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully defines the call shape. The description adds an explicit 'Args: (none)' confirmation, which is useful but not a heavy burden; the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('schema of the local finbridge database'), then clarifies exactly what it does not do: 'It returns no company data itself — get_db_schema describes the tables, query_db runs the SELECT.' This clearly distinguishes it from the close sibling query_db and from data-returning tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use directions: 'Read this before writing a query_db statement' and 'Use when: preparing a query_db, or checking ingest coverage.' It also names exclusions and alternatives, such as get_stock_prices and get_valuation, and warns that FinBridge has no real-time quote tool.

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