get_warehouse_right_sizing_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the heuristic nature, that it's a starting point not guaranteed, and advises caution. It explains the logic behind recommendations but does not detail return format or side effects.

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 well-structured with an introduction, bullet points for heuristics, and a caution. It is concise but front-loads the key purpose. Slightly verbose in the bullet examples but overall efficient.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the tool's purpose, heuristic logic, and parameter meaning. It omits details on the exact output, but the output schema likely handles that. It is complete for a heuristic investigation tool.

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?

Only one parameter (lookback_days) with 0% schema coverage. Description adds 'default from server config' which provides context beyond the schema, but could specify format or range more clearly.

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 it provides heuristic right-sizing recommendations per warehouse, combining credit usage and query queueing behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_warehouse_credit_usage and list_warehouses by offering synthesized insights.

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 scenarios for when to suspect oversized or undersized warehouses and advises sanity-checking before resizing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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