base_tableUsage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions use of SQLAlchemy and return of rendered SQL metadata, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Description mixes purpose with implementation details (SQLAlchemy, bind parameters) and return metadata. Could be more concise; the first sentence is clear, but subsequent text adds 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description lacks detail on default behavior when database_name is null. Return format is vague ('formatted response with query results + metadata'). Leaves agent guessing.

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?

Only parameter is 'database_name' with schema coverage 0%. Description repeats 'Database name' without additional detail (e.g., format, required vs optional, behavior if omitted). Adds no value beyond schema.

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 measures usage of tables and views by users, helping infer active objects. It mentions arguments and returns, but does not specify what exact metrics are provided (e.g., query counts, user counts). Distinguished from siblings like base_tableAffinity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like dba_tableUsageImpact or base_tableAffinity. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives.

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