List distribution policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that the tool is read-only. It adds value by explaining the internal join logic, the behavior for different schema values, and the special case on vanilla PostgreSQL where it returns available=false with a diagnostic.

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 (3-4 sentences plus an example), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (handling return format), the description covers the main aspects: what is listed, possible distribution policies, schema parameter behavior, and behavior on vanilla PG. It does not discuss error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., needing WarehousePG), but for a read-only list tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 50% (only the 'database' parameter has a description in the input schema). The description compensates by explaining the 'schema' parameter: 'schema=None returns every non-system schema.' and provides an example with schema='public'. However, it could be more explicit about the 'database' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'List' and specifies the resource: 'data-distribution policy for each table in a WarehousePG schema', including the possible values (HASH, RANDOM, REPLICATED). It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by focusing on distribution policies and mentioning the join with system catalogs.

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 description explains that schema=None returns all non-system schemas and provides an example usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools or when it might not be appropriate, such as on vanilla PostgreSQL (it does note that on vanilla PG it returns available=false).

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