Database schema

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description adds no contradiction. What it does contribute is return-content detail: that the response includes types, ranges, enums, reference kinds, and collections. Since there is no output schema, this is genuinely useful, though it stops short of describing the response structure and never explains what "patchable" means or whether the listed fields are the ones accepted by the mutation siblings.

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, so nothing is wasted, but it is a verbless noun phrase whose most important qualifier ("Patchable") is undefined and comes first, making the sentence harder to parse than its length suggests. A leading verb plus a clarifying clause about what "patchable" refers to would cost two words and remove the ambiguity.

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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool this is close to sufficient, and the annotations plus the enum already carry most of the load. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information and it gives just a comma-separated list of attribute kinds rather than any sense of the returned structure.

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 coverage is 100% and the single category parameter carries a 13-value enum with a description already in the schema. The description only restates "of a category" and adds no scoping, default, or behavior detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 fragment names the resource class it reads from ("a category") and enumerates what the result contains (types, ranges, enums, reference kinds, collections), so the shape of the output is inferable. But it never states a verb such as "describe" or "list", and the leading adjective "Patchable" is unexplained, so an agent must guess whether this is a read-only introspection call or something that returns editable field metadata. Nothing here separates it from siblings like database_list_categories or database_get_record.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tool. The reader can only infer usage from "of a category" combined with the required category parameter. It never says to call this before database_apply_changes or database_update_record, which is the obvious reason a schema-introspection tool exists in this catalog.

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