find_usage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds that it analyzes 'saved queries,' which clarifies scope, but does not disclose details like result format, performance implications, or limitations. Given the annotation, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the usage guidance is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and when to use. It doesn't describe the output, but no output schema exists, and the result type (list of queries) is implicitly understood. Adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps 'given table/view' to the table parameter and 'optionally a given column' to the column parameter, clarifying that column is optional. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify input formats.

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: impact analysis for saved queries referencing a table/column. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table (schema details), search_schema (object search), and find_join_path (join discovery) by focusing on usage dependency.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Ask this before a table or column is changed, renamed or retired.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger context is clear and actionable.

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