describe_sql_insight_statistic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of querying is consistent. It adds that the return is in CSV format and includes parameter format examples (e.g., datetime strings), which provides additional context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or limits.

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 relatively concise, combining a one-line purpose with an inline Args block. There is no redundant information, and the structure is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate sections for usage context.

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 simple read tool with three parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters with examples, and return format. However, it lacks context on how to interpret the statistics, whether results are aggregated or time-series, and any limitations (e.g., maximum time range).

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters. 'dbinstance_id' is described as 'The ID of the RDS instance,' and 'start_time'/'end_time' include format examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema property names.

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 'Query SQL Log statistics, including SQL cost time, execution times, and account,' providing a specific verb and resource. It lists key fields, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_sql' or 'describe_slow_log_records'. Therefore, it is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings such as 'describe_monitor_metrics' or 'explain_sql'. The usage context is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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