Read a PostgreSQL application database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing about what is returned, whether missing databases error, or any permissions required.

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 comes from having no content rather than from tight editing. There is no structure, no scoping clause, and no routing to alternatives.

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 two constrained, undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies none of the missing context an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly. Everything of value lives in the name and annotations.

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 the two required parameters, 'cluster' (with a 12-char lowercase pattern) and 'database' (max 63 chars), and the description explains neither. The only documented parameter is the optional 'namespace' via $ref, which the description does not reference either.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus postgres_databases_list, postgres_bindings_list, or the MySQL equivalent. The agent must infer that this is a single-resource read from the name alone.

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