Full report (all checks)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently reveals the tool is a composite that conditionally runs other checks and returns a single Markdown report. However, it does not disclose whether these probes have side effects, require network access, or how failures of individual sub-checks are handled.

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?

One dense sentence conveys the composition, conditions, and output format without filler. The phrase about the Markdown report is useful and front-loaded enough, though the multiple conditionals make it slightly heavy.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 8 parameters, 0 required parameters, and no output schema. The description explains the overall flow but leaves major input fields undocumented, does not say what happens when no arguments are supplied, and only vaguely describes the report contents.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps databaseUrl, serviceRoleKey, and tables/twoAccountTables. Parameters such as rpc, url, anonKey, and buckets are never explained, and the description's 'tables' wording is ambiguous against the schema's separate 'tables' and 'twoAccountTables' fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it runs probe_anon, audit_policies, and two_account_test, then returns one Markdown report sorted by severity. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are the individual checks it aggregates.

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 conditional guidance for when sub-checks run (audit_policies only if a database URL is available; two_account_test only if a service role key and tables are given). However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this aggregate tool over running the individual sibling tools, leaving the main usage decision implied rather than stated.

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