Inspect a database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context that annotations cannot express: sampling starts at the first network record and observed fields are not a complete schema. It stops short of explaining output shape or field-limit behavior in depth, but the key sampling caveat is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: capability first, usage/routing second, and the sampling limitation that governs interpretation of results third. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, use cases, sibling routing, and the sampling caveat that an agent needs to interpret results correctly, which is complete for this read-only inspection tool.

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 both 'database' and 'sample_size' fully documented including default, min/max, and the early-stop caveat. The description only vaguely alludes to sampling ('sample field paths') and adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read MMDB metadata and sample field paths, types, and examples') and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming summarize_network (for group_by field selection) and verify_database (for integrity). An agent can distinguish it from lookup_* and compare_databases tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('choose fields, filter paths, or a summarize_network group_by field') and routes the integrity-checking case to verify_database. It also names the prerequisite indirectly by pointing to loaded databases via the schema's list_databases reference, leaving nothing to inference.

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