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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: the level is derived from role grants in force in the database 'exactly as the gateway sees them', and warnings flag concrete unsafe states (a table without RLS open to visitors, a grant lacking USAGE on its schema). It stops short of pagination, volume, or failure behavior.

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 the core statement, then the level vocabulary, then the provenance, then warnings — a logical order with no filler. Minor stylistic cost from the hard line breaks inside sentences and the double enumeration of levels.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is mainly to define the vocabulary it returns — which it does for all four levels and for warnings. Only the relationship to neighboring data_api_* tools is left unexplained.

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 both parameters (database, organization) are fully documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior when omitted. The description contributes only the possessive 'The database's', 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?

States a specific resource — the database's REST and RPC methods — and a specific payload: an access level per HTTP method plus warnings. An agent can tell it apart from data_api_grant or data_api_keys by the output concept, though the description never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is diagnostic, and 'warnings ... report them to the person' tells the agent what to do with results. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to data_api_status / data_api_grant as alternatives.

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