base_tableUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds important behavioral details: the persist parameter materializes a volatile table and returns its name, which is a write operation. This disclosure goes beyond the annotations, earning a high score even though the persistence behavior might contradict readOnlyHint.

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 extremely concise: two sentences describing purpose and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the rich annotations, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks a description of the return format when persist is false (presumably a result set). With no output schema provided, this omission makes the description somewhat incomplete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The tool description largely repeats the schema descriptions for database_name and persist. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 table and view usage, with a verb (measure) and resource (tables/views). It adds context by noting it's helpful for inferring active objects. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tool dba_tableUsageImpact, which also deals with table usage, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest any prerequisites. Sibling tools like dba_tableUsageImpact could cause confusion, but no differentiation is provided.

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