Run a structured Laravel database assertion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying 'bounded' (limiting result scope) and 'without accepting raw SQL' (security constraint). No contradictions exist. Minor missing details on assertion failure behavior, but overall adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, clearly identifying the tool's action and constraints.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return value format, error handling, or how to interpret assertion results. The agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.

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 25%, and the description adds no parameter-specific explanations. It mentions assertion types but does not elaborate on parameters like 'query', 'expected', or 'jsonPath' beyond what is in the schema. The description fails to compensate for low schema 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 it evaluates assertions over a read-only Laravel query, listing specific assertion types (count, existence, column, JSON-path). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'bounded read-only' and 'without accepting raw SQL', which is unique among database-related tools.

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 assertions but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like laravel_database_snapshot or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Context suggests it is for verifying database state, but no direct alternatives are mentioned.

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