create_hg_maxcompute_foreign_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome ('accelerate queries') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this creates a persistent or temporary resource, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and benefit, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't address mutation implications, return values, or error handling. The agent understands what the tool does but not how it behaves or what to expect from its execution.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Create a MaxCompute foreign table'), the resource ('in Hologres database'), and the purpose ('to accelerate queries on MaxCompute data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'execute_hg_ddl_sql' by focusing on a specialized operation rather than general SQL execution.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, performance implications, or compare it to similar tools like 'execute_hg_ddl_sql' which might also create tables. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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