✓ SAFE: Get DB metadata and statistics, not row data.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes 'SAFE' and 'not row data' which indicate a read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on what metadata/statistics are returned, whether there are any side effects, or if specific permissions are required. This is partial transparency at best.

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 sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key information. Every word contributes value: the safety marker, the verb, the resource, and the exclusion of row data. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple but the description is insufficient for complete understanding. There is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know the return format or the specific statistics included. The one parameter is undocumented, and the description's brevity leaves many practical questions unanswered, such as whether database_name is required or what happens if omitted.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter, database_name, with no description, and the tool description provides no explanation of its meaning or usage. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does nothing to compensate, leaving the agent completely in the dark about the parameter's purpose.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 by noting it retrieves metadata and statistics, not row data, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. It provides a hint about the tool's non-row-data scope, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions like 'use for database health checks'.

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