db-oauth-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the dual behavior (list tables vs. describe columns) and database-specific syntax (MariaDB, MSSQL), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or permissions required, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage instructions. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains parameter usage and alternatives, and the third clarifies syntax nuances. No wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description does well by explaining parameters and usage. However, it doesn't cover return values or error cases, which are important for a tool with dual behaviors. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'connection' as 'the name of the target' with usage notes, and 'table' as 'schema.table' with database-specific formats and how it controls the tool's behavior (list vs. describe). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('list tables' and 'describe a specific table's columns') and identifies the resource ('for a given connection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_connections' (which lists connections) and 'query_database' (which executes queries).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call with no `table` argument to see all tables, or with `table` set... to describe its columns.' It also specifies when to omit the connection parameter ('omit if only one connection exists'), offering clear alternatives based on context.

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