Run advisors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces by stating 'Advisory only — no writes'. It adds value by listing the specific types of rules checked (e.g., duplicate indexes, nullable timestamps), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second adds key behavioral details. Every part earns its place.

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's complexity (2 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It lists the rule categories and confirms read-only behavior. The output schema covers return value details, so the description does not need to explain them.

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 50%, and the description does not add significant detail beyond the schema. The first sentence mentions 'against a schema' but does not explain the database parameter semantics. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 it runs catalog-driven advisor rules against a schema and returns aggregated findings. It lists specific rules (missing primary keys, unindexed foreign keys, duplicate indexes, nullable timestamps), making it distinct from sibling tools like analyze_* or recommend_*.

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 says 'Advisory only — no writes' which gives a usage hint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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