dba_featureUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the ability to persist results as a volatile table via the 'persist' parameter, and the date range constraint.

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 a clear purpose statement and usage guideline, followed by parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 description explains what the tool does and its parameters, but does not describe the output format or content of the report (e.g., list of features, counts, etc.). With no output schema, additional detail on return value would improve completeness. The persist behavior is explained, but the default output is vague.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats the parameter definitions, adding minimal value beyond a concise summary. It does not provide additional semantics or examples for parameters like start_date and end_date beyond format specification.

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 action ('Report') and the resource ('Teradata product features used during a specified date range'). It also lists specific use cases, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like other dba_ tools which focus on space, version, sessions, etc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about feature adoption, which Teradata capabilities are being used, or how feature utilization has changed over a period.' It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives.

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