Horizon List Masking Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping levels, but the quoted_name/quoted_qualified_name sentence largely restates return fields that the output schema already provides.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, no filler. The second sentence spends its length on return-value details that the output schema already carries, which is the only wasted effort.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is behavior for the `pattern` filter and any guidance on choosing scope levels — the parts an agent actually needs to call this correctly.

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 67%, and the uncovered parameter is `pattern` — the most ambiguous one. The description says nothing about what pattern matches (regex? glob? prefix?) or its default behavior. The quoting remark for database/schema_name only repeats a hint already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List column masking policies') plus the scope levels (account, database, schema). It does not name or differentiate from the obvious sibling choices (horizon_describe_masking_policy, horizon_list_row_access_policies), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The three scopes are mentioned but it never says how to choose between them, nor when to prefer horizon_describe_masking_policy over this list call.

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