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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly fails it. It never states what the check returns, what counts as a 'dangerous operation', or whether it is read-only or mutates anything, leaving critical behavioral context absent.

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?

It is a single compact line with no filler, which is good, but it is essentially the tool name restated with a colon and adds almost no information. Terse but not effectively front-loaded.

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 tool with three ambiguous optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It leaves the agent without the return shape, the required input, or the scope of 'dangerous operation' detection.

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?

Although schema coverage is nominally 100%, the schema descriptions are tautological ('Sql to process', 'Text to process', 'Query to process') and 0 parameters are required. The description does nothing to disambiguate which of sql/text/query the agent should supply or whether they are alternatives, so the coverage figure overstates real clarity.

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 function: detecting SQL injection and dangerous operations. That much is clear, but it offers no differentiation from close siblings like x402-sql-validate, x402-sql-explain, and x402-sql-format, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance whatsoever. Nothing says whether this analyzes a SQL string for injection risk, sanitizes it, or validates syntax, nor how to choose it over x402-sql-validate.

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