Read autovacuum priority

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

Description adds significant detail beyond annotations: explains priority logic, output fields, and top-level overdue_count. Aligns with readOnlyHint. No contradictions.

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?

Single concise paragraph with front-loaded purpose and example. Efficiently covers purpose, logic, output, and usage example. Could be slightly more structured but no unnecessary words.

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?

With output schema present, description need not detail return format but still explains output fields and priority categories. Covers ranking logic and top-level aggregate. Lacks mention of error cases or pagination but adequate for 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 coverage is 50% (only database described). Description compensates for limit by showing example usage, implying it limits rows. Database parameter details are not enhanced beyond schema. Partial compensation.

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?

Description explicitly states verb 'return' and resource 'tables most urgently needing autovacuum' with ranking method. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on autovacuum priority rather than generic table listing.

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?

Description implies use for identifying urgent autovacuum candidates but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., list_tables) or when not to use. Lacks direct usage guidance.

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