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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('all tables, columns, types, and relationships') but does not mention potential performance costs, output size, or whether the response is paginated. It is adequate but not enhanced beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear list of what will be returned (tables, columns, types, relationships). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output, though it does not describe the exact response format or any edge cases like permissions or size limits.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema already covers all parameter semantics. No additional meaning is required.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full database schema' with explicit scope: tables, columns, types, and relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scalix_db_table (specific table) and scalix_db_relationships (relationships only).

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving the entire schema, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as scalix_db_table or scalix_db_search_columns. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are stated, so guidance is only implied.

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