query_suggest_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core function and adds no behavioral traits. It does not say whether this is a read-only suggestion operation or one that modifies the database, what output to expect, or whether authentication via api_key is required.

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 entire description is one grammatically clean sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. It earns a top score for economy.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the return shape, whether the tool writes to the database or only returns recommendations, and how existing_indexes affects the suggestions. An agent would have to infer or probe these details before relying on the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'query patterns and table structure' loosely maps to the queries and table_name parameters, but it adds no format, constraint, or effect information beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, no compensation is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Suggest'), a concrete resource ('database indexes'), and the inputs it works from ('query patterns and table structure'). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby tools like query_rewrite or query_analyze_slow, but it does not explicitly call out any sibling or boundary case, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as query_analyze_slow or query_rewrite, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied use case is the purpose sentence itself, which is essentially a restatement of the function.

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