dba_tableSpace

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. The description adds detail on the persist parameter: 'materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name,' which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No additional traits like side effects or auth needs are discussed, but annotations already cover safety.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose paragraph followed by a bulleted argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly longer than necessary due to repeated parameter info, it remains readable and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (columns, structure) for the normal case. For persist, it notes returns table name. While annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, the missing output description leaves some ambiguity for the agent about what to expect from the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description duplicates parameter docs in an Arguments section, reinforcing requirements like 'database_name - Required — do not pass empty string' and defaults. However, it adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; the persist description is identical.

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 explicitly states 'Show table-level disk space usage within a specific Teradata database, ranked by size.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'Use when the user asks which tables are largest' and contrasts with dba_databaseSpace and dba_systemSpace.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the user asks which tables are largest or consuming the most storage within a named database.' Also gives when-not-to-use: 'NEVER call this tool with an empty database_name' and instructs to ask for database if not provided. Alternatives are named: dba_databaseSpace and dba_systemSpace.

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