analyze_workload_indexes

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) and non-idempotency, so the description should add cost/latency expectations, whether analysis is expensive or long-running, or how the recommendation is produced. It adds none of that, only restating that it analyzes and recommends.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral context is thin.

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 two-optional-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient: an agent knows what it does but not the shape or timing of the recommendations, or which method to pick. Nothing incorrect, but clear gaps remain.

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% with descriptions on both parameters (including the 'dta'/'llm' enum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the method choice or max_index_size_mb beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('frequently executed queries in the database') plus the output ('recommend optimal indexes'). The workload-wide scope implicitly separates it from analyze_query_indexes, though the sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'frequently executed queries in the database' implies whole-workload analysis rather than a single query, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative single-query tool by name.

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