Read a custom database role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the role does not exist, what 'custom' excludes (e.g. built-in roles), or what fields are returned.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence simply restates the title and carries no additional information for the caller.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should explain the resource being fetched and its identifiers or the not-found behavior. None of that is present, so it is not complete enough to call reliably without probing sibling tools.

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 0% for cluster, database, and role, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. An agent gets no hint about identifier formats, whether cluster/database must already exist, or what the optional namespace parameter is for beyond the referenced $defs pattern.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of which sibling to pick when the engine or resource type is ambiguous. The only implied guidance is that it is a single-item read rather than a list.

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