Acquire test database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the environment is isolated, cloned from dev with schema and seed data, auto-reclaimed at expiry, and that connection strings are returned in plaintext. It doesn't cover every side effect like approval flow or resource cleanup after expiry, but the most important behavioral traits are present.

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 and opens with the core behavior and return value before adding usage guidance and lifecycle notes. Each sentence adds useful information, though there is slight redundancy in mentioning the dev-clone twice.

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?

The description covers the core return value, the source schema state, and the required inputs, but it leaves the optional parameter semantics unexplained. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the missing details around ttl, kinds, and approval flow make the description incomplete for complex usage.

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%, and there are 6 parameters, but the description only lightly references 'project' and 'purpose'. It does not explain the optional parameters kinds, ttl_minutes, approval_token, or approval_wait_seconds, nor does it clarify formats or units for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it acquires an isolated PostgreSQL clone plus a free Redis database and returns plaintext connection strings. It clearly distinguishes the acquisition action from the sibling lifecycle tools like release_test_database, renew_test_database, and list_test_databases.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'whenever tests need a real database' and even warns against falling back to sqlite or in-memory substitutes. It also tells the caller to call release_test_database when done, providing clear lifecycle context and an alternative action.

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