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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a genuine access constraint: credential tables and columns are not listed because they cannot be read. That is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise hit as a surprise. It does not describe the shape or size of the returned listing, which keeps it below 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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope definition, usage sequencing, and the credential exclusion caveat. Front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and access limits — enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is what the listing actually returns (table names with column lists and types), which matters a bit since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 optional 'table' parameter is already documented as 'One table instead of all.' The description adds no syntax, casing, or naming-convention guidance for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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?

Names the resource precisely (tables and columns of Site Doctor's own database) and immediately disambiguates scope: the platform, not the monitored sites. An agent can distinguish it from saas_query and from site-data siblings (get_site, list_sites) without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the sequencing rule: call this before saas_query so you write real column names rather than guessing. That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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