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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and does so: it declares read-only enforcement (writes rejected, only SELECT/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN/WITH), 90-day log retention, self-logging of every request including 200s, ~99% ingest filtering in saas_query, old-connector failure modes (unknown_op/unsupported), and a 10-40s capability probe with ok/waf/timeout/path_unresolved classifications.

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 purpose, then the critical traffic-log warning is placed prominently before the op inventory. The remaining text is dense and run-on with heavy caps and em dashes, and the long op-name list is close to a schema dump, but nearly every sentence carries operative information given the breadth of the tool.

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?

Complete enough to call correctly: ops, param contracts, caveats, verification path, and failure modes are all covered for a 25+ op multiplexer. It does not describe return shapes for any op, and with no output schema that is the one remaining gap, though it is impractical to cover per-op here.

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% and only offers a generic object for params, but the description adds real meaning on top: concrete param shapes for option_get and db_query, plus bounded values for ah_events (hours<=720, limit<=2000, type enum values). This is the only place the op vocabulary and per-op parameter contracts are discoverable since the schema has no enum on op.

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 (relay a read-only forensic operation to the site via the SaaS broker) plus a full enumeration of the underlying ops, which is the real resource surface. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling saas_query (signal DB) and from SSH fallback, so an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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 explicit routing rules: use ah_events for any traffic/access question and NEVER saas_query, use option_get/db_query instead of falling back to SSH for reads, and run capabilities before declaring anything unreachable. Alternatives and the conditions selecting them are spelled out, not implied.

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