compare_postgres_database

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

The description discloses that the tool uses placeholder data and is a v0.3 preview, warning users to verify against current cloud pricing. It also describes the selection logic (cheapest matching SKU per cloud). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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, using two sentences plus a warning. It front-loads the purpose and behavior, with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's purpose, input requirements, and a critical caveat (placeholder data). It does not specify the output format, but given the lack of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is reasonably complete for a pricing comparison tool. Minor gaps exist but do not significantly hinder understanding.

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 description highlights the key parameters (vCPUs, memory, storage_gb) that drive pricing, adding meaning beyond the input schema. However, it does not explain other parameters like quantity, hours_per_month, or tier defaults. Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool compares managed PostgreSQL pricing across four specific clouds, picking the cheapest matching SKU per cloud. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_compute_inventory or compare_clouds.

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 explains that each request specifies vCPUs, memory, and storage_gb, and the tool totals compute plus storage. It implicitly guides use for PostgreSQL pricing comparison, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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