find_expensive_queries

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions it returns 'successful queries', ranked by elapsed time, and lists output fields (truncated query text, warehouse, user, etc.). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or potential repercussions, but for a read-only analysis tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient and not misleading.

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 concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a clear 'Args' block. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 2 simple parameters and an output schema (exists but not shown), the description adequately explains the return fields and ranking criteria. It lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward lookup tool, it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'lookback_days' as how many days back to look (with default from server config) and 'limit' as max number of queries (default typically 50). The input schema only provides type and nullability, so the description adds essential meaning and default behavior.

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 'Find the slowest / most expensive successful queries', which is a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('successful queries'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_query_detail' (specific query) and 'run_readonly_query' (execute a query) by focusing on ranking expensive ones.

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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer that it's for finding expensive queries, while siblings serve different purposes (e.g., listing warehouses, getting details). No exclusions or when-not listed, but context is adequate.

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