get_queries_not_using_covering_index

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the source catalog and the preference over raw SQL, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or performance characteristics. This is consistent with the annotation and adds only modest context beyond it.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed in a clear second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the data source, the specific filtering criterion, and the recommended way to use it relative to raw SQL. Nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema, including its default value. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('queries that don't use a covering index'), and the exact source catalog ('system:completed_requests'). This clearly distinguishes it from the raw query tool and, by the phrase 'don't use a covering index', from sibling query-analysis tools with different criteria.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this tool over writing a raw system:completed_requests query via run_sql_plus_plus_query, giving the agent a clear routing instruction. It does not provide exclusions or compare to other sibling query-analysis tools, but the primary alternative is named and handled.

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