call_procedure

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explicitly states 'Commits automatically,' which is critical for a procedure that may modify data, and 'Only available on writable connections,' an operational prerequisite. It also clarifies the IN-only parameter limitation. This goes well beyond structured annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, followed by three short sentences covering limitations, commit behavior, and connection requirement. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 procedure-call tool, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter limitations, commit behavior, and connection prerequisites. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—each parameter already has a meaningful description (e.g., params: 'IN parameters as key-value pairs', connection: 'Must have readonly=false'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Call a stored procedure or package procedure via anonymous PL/SQL block.' It uses a specific verb, names the resource type, and distinguishes it from siblings like create_procedure or execute_query.

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?

Provides clear usage constraints: 'Supports IN parameters only', 'Commits automatically', and 'Only available on writable connections.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and what conditions must be met, though no explicit alternatives are named.

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