table_scan_cost_hints

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation (estimate from metadata) but does not disclose if the operation is expensive, requires permissions, or returns only estimates. The phrase 'cost signals' is vague.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and source. No extraneous 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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is nearly complete. However, it could specify the nature of the cost signals (e.g., cardinality, sizes) for better context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'table' parameter (e.g., format, required context). While the parameter is intuitive from the tool name, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 estimates full-scan cost signals from Iceberg metadata, using specific verb 'estimate' and resource 'full-scan cost signals'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'describe_metadata_table' or 'get_table_health' by specifying the unique output.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'partition_pruning_check' or 'get_table_health'. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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