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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with a pure read. Beyond the annotations it discloses important traits: the response contains plaintext secrets, includes both private-network and public-when-open connection URIs, and requires databases.write–scoped auth. It doesn't note rotation or rate limits, so not 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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the security handling, then scope. Slightly compressed phrasing in the first clause but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description describes the return shape (users, passwords, databases, read_only, connection_uri) and covers the security and scope implications an agent needs. Nothing material for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'database' param is documented in the schema as an id from list_databases/create_database. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves per-user credentials (password, databases, read_only) and ready-made connection strings for a given database. It is clearly distinguishable from metadata tools like get_database or credential-mutating tools like reset_database_password. It doesn't explicitly route against those siblings, keeping it at 4.

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?

"Scope: databases.write" states a prerequisite, and the secret-handling instruction (env var or secret store, never code/commits/logs) gives clear context for use. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to call it (e.g. when only metadata via get_database is needed), so no explicit exclusions.

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