Get PgBouncer config

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds mild context by naming the settings returned, but it does not expose behavior such as defaults, error conditions, or output format.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The core content is stated immediately and every word contributes information.

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 well-documented parameters, the description provides a sufficient high-level view of the returned settings. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the global pool tunables would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (cluster name, context, namespace). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 identifies the resource (PgBouncer settings for a cluster) and lists the key content areas (replicas, pool_mode, global pool tunables), so an agent can tell what this tool returns. It does not explicitly phrase an action verb and does not contrast with siblings like get_pg_parameters, so it misses the top tier.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pg_parameters or get_cluster_status. It only describes the output, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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