dba_databaseSpace

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true) already indicate safe read operations. The description adds context about the persist parameter materializing results as a volatile table and returning the table name. It does not cover return format or error behavior, but the additions are valuable and consistent.

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 paragraphs: first gives purpose and usage guidance, second lists arguments with clear constraints. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral notes, and sibling differentiation. It is fully complete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: database_name is required and must not be empty, and persist with True materializes as a volatile table and returns the table name. This goes beyond the schema's simple type/required annotations.

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 it shows disk space allocation for a specific named Teradata database. It distinguishes itself from siblings dba_tableSpace (table-level) and dba_systemSpace (system-wide). The verb 'show' and resource 'disk space allocation for a specific named database' is precise.

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 (user asks about space for a specific database) and when not (table-level or system-wide). Also provides a crucial guideline: if no database name is provided, ask for clarification; do not call with an empty string.

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