dba_resusageSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the persist parameter behavior (materializes result as volatile table and returns table name). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage guidance, followed by a well-organized list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 reporting tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter details adequately. It explains the persist parameter's return behavior. However, it lacks details about the default output format or potential size, which would be helpful.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description repeats these descriptions in a list format but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 reports system-wide resource consumption (CPU, IO, memory) broken down by time period, application, workload type, or complexity class. It distinguishes itself from sibling dba_tableUsageImpact by specifying that it is not tied to a specific database, but for per-database or per-user impact.

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: 'system-level resource breakdowns, workload profiles, or consumption trends over a date range — not tied to a specific database.' It also provides an alternative sibling: 'For per-database or per-user impact within a named database, use dba_tableUsageImpact instead.'

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