get_security_config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully signals that the policy is 'effective' (i.e., resolved/merged rather than raw per-connection rows) and lists the limits a caller can rely on, which is real added value. It does not say what happens on an unknown or unauthorized connection, nor whether the read itself is scoped or rate-limited.

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?

Single dense sentence plus a short imperative; both clauses earn their place and the returned fields are front-loaded. The fragmentary opening ('Effective policy of a connection:') costs a little polish but not clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains to be desired is failure-mode behavior, but for a simple read of a config with one param, the definition is essentially call-ready.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage including a pointer to list_connections, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaults beyond 'of a connection', making baseline 3 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?

Names the resource (a connection's effective security policy) and enumerates the exact fields returned: read_only, DML/DDL permissions, max_rows, max_bytes, query_timeout. That is specific and distinguishable from list/query siblings, though it opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the 'get/read' framing must be inferred.

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?

Provides a concrete triggering condition: 'Check it before attempting a write.' That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when the check can be skipped, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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