dba_tableUsageImpact

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not confirm read-only nature, access requirements, performance impact, or limitations. The word 'measure' suggests non-destructive action but is not explicit.

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 concise with two sentences and a parameter list, front-loading the purpose. Minimal waste, though the argument list could be integrated more cleanly.

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 lacks an output schema and has no annotations. The description does not specify return values or format, leaving a gap for agents to understand what the tool outputs. Also, parameter interaction is ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description adds basic meaning to parameters ('database name to analyze', 'user name to analyze'). However, it does not clarify behavior when both are null or the relationship between filtering (AND vs OR).

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, with a specific goal of identifying resource drivers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like base_tableUsage or dba_tableSpace.

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 provides a use case (understanding resource usage) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like base_tableUsage or dba_resusageSummary, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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