user_preferences_allowed_check_constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context that it parses the schema to extract constraints. It does not disclose anything beyond what annotations and the simple nature imply, but doesn't contradict.

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 two sentences that directly state the action and the method. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, no extraneous words, and highly efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations, a clear name, and complete schema descriptions, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. The return is a list of allowed values, which is straightforward without needing an output schema.

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 100% with both parameters (table, field) described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a list of allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields in user_preferences.db, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like core_allowed_check_constraints by naming the specific database.

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 implicitly indicates use for user_preferences.db based on the name and context, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like core_allowed_check_constraints. However, the naming makes it clear, so it's fairly clear context without exclusions.

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