Get timescaledb telemetry report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the report is generated locally from catalog data, nothing is sent by this call, and the separate upload is governed by timescaledb.telemetry_level, plus a sensitivity warning about the embedded database UUID. It stops short of describing return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value and tightly packed with non-redundant facts. Slightly dense but no sentence is filler; the scoping and sensitivity caveats each carry weight.

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 no prose, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the remaining agent-relevant facts: local generation, no transmission, the controlling GUC, and the sensitivity caveat.

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% and the single optional 'database' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_databases. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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+resource ('Return the usage report TimescaleDB builds about this database') and enumerates the content (versions, relation counts and sizes, feature usage). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_hypertable_stats or list_timescale_jobs without opening the schema.

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?

Implies when the tool is relevant (inspecting the local telemetry payload) and usefully clarifies what the call does NOT do — it does not upload, the upload is a separate background job. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when another sibling should be preferred, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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