compare_postgres_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that pricing is bundled placeholder data, advises verification, and explains the tool's logic (picks cheapest SKU per cloud, totals compute+storage). This is transparent about limitations and behavior, though it omits details like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, a second sentence explaining how it works, and a third sentence providing an important caveat. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-cloud comparison), the lack of output schema, and the placeholder data warning, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers input requirements, tool behavior, and a crucial limitation. It is complete for the task.

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 input schema has descriptions for some nested properties, but the context reports 0% schema description coverage. The tool description adds value by explaining how the parameters (vCPUs, memory, storage_gb) are used to select and total SKUs. This goes beyond what the raw schema provides, even though the schema has some self-documentation.

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 clearly states the tool compares managed PostgreSQL pricing across four major clouds. It uses specific verbs (Compare) and resource (managed PostgreSQL pricing), distinguishing it from sibling tools that compare other resources like compute or storage.

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 explains that each request must specify vCPUs, memory, and storage_gb, and that the tool picks the cheapest matching SKU per cloud. It also warns that the pricing is placeholder data and should be verified. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the context from sibling names implies it.

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