RLS coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'quick' and produces a 'per-table yes/no' result, but does not describe error handling, whether the SQL is executed or parsed statically, or how it treats invalid or complex SQL. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the high-level behavior and output shape. It lacks details like return format specifics (e.g., list vs. map) but infers that from 'per-table yes/no.' The tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably complete.

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 sole parameter 'sql' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's reference to 'given SQL' adds no new meaning. The schema already explains the parameter as 'The SQL schema / migration text.' The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 function: providing a per-table yes/no answer on whether Row-Level Security is enabled in the given SQL. It is specific to the resource (SQL text) and uniquely identifies the tool's output, distinguishing it from siblings like a general SQL audit or rule listing.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or whether it works on arbitrary SQL or only migration scripts. Usage context is only implicitly inferable from the tool's name and purpose.

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