show_largest_table_fragment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description uses 'Query' which aligns. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., performance, permissions). With annotations present, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence (7 words) that is front-loaded with the action. It earns its place but could benefit from a bit more detail on scope.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description is minimal. It doesn't elaborate on return values or ordering, but the output schema presumably covers that. Not complete enough for higher score.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how topK relates to fragment size). Baseline 3 is adequate.

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 'Query the tables with the largest table fragments' clearly states the action (query) and the target (tables with largest fragments). It is specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'show_largest_table' which may cover overall table sizes.

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 like 'show_largest_table' or others. No prerequisites or usage context are given.

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