✓ SAFE: Get database info (size, table/index counts, statistics). Metadata only, no data.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Metadata only, no data' and '✓ SAFE', clearly indicating the tool is read-only and non-destructive. This is sufficient for a metadata retrieval tool, though it could mention permission requirements or scope.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all key information without excess. It is perfectly sized for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 has no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description provides basic return information (size, counts, statistics) but does not explain behavior when no database_name is provided (e.g., returns info for all databases?). An agent may need additional context for correct invocation.

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 one parameter 'database_name' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It fails to clarify whether the parameter is required, its default behavior, or how to use it. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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?

The description includes '✓ SAFE' which implies it is a read-only, low-risk operation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'describe_table'. The usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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