SqlAugur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the JSON output structure ('references' and 'referencedBy' arrays), which isn't covered by annotations, enhancing behavioral understanding.

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 in the first sentence and adds output details in the second, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (dependency analysis), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the JSON output structure, but lacks details on error handling or example usage, which could be helpful despite no 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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., serverName from list_servers). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('show what references and what references it') and resource ('database object'), distinguishing it from siblings like describe_table or get_object_definition by focusing on dependency relationships rather than structure or definition.

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 implies usage for dependency analysis, providing clear context, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mermaid_diagram or get_plantuml_diagram for visualization, or list_programmable_objects for broader listings.

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