Horizon List Row Access Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some output-field context (quoted_name, quoted_qualified_name), but does not explain permissions, default scope, or whether results are paginated. With annotations present, this is a modest but not rich behavioral addition.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence about quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name is useful for identifier interpretation but is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, so it is efficient but not perfectly tight.

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 low-complexity list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed and the possible scopes. It leaves gaps around pattern matching behavior and the default scope when no database or schema is supplied.

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 coverage is 67%: database and schema_name have descriptions about quoting non-uppercase names, while pattern is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's phrase 'account, database, or schema' weakly implies the optional scoping hierarchy, but it does not compensate for the undocumented pattern parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List row access policies defined in the account, database, or schema.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling horizon_describe_row_access_policy by being a listing operation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify why one would use this versus horizon_list_masking_policies.

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 mention of 'account, database, or schema' implies scope-based filtering, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the describe or masking-policy list siblings. Usage is only implied through the scope wording.

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