dba_tableSqlList

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (getting a list) and notes that the response is 'formatted response with query results + metadata.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and is minimally adequate.

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 very concise, using only three lines for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value, but the structure is a bit flat. Bullet points or clearer separation would improve readability. Still, it avoids verbosity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the functionality and parameters, but lacks details about the output format (beyond 'formatted response') and does not differentiate from similar-purpose siblings. Given the context of many sibling tools, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'table_name - table name' and 'no_days - number of days.' However, it does not specify the unit (days) beyond the name, nor does it clarify that no_days is optional with default 7 (schema shows default). The explanation is helpful but incomplete; e.g., it could state 'number of past days to include.'

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 purpose: 'Get a list of SQL run against a table in the last number of days.' It specifies a verb (get/list), resource (SQL queries for a table), and context (within recent days). This differentiates it from sibling tools like dba_userSqlList, which focuses on user-level SQL, and base_readQuery, which executes arbitrary queries.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools such as base_tableUsage, dba_featureUsage, or base_readQuery, the description should indicate scenarios where querying historical SQL by table is appropriate. The description simply states what it does without context for selection.

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