Table stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it is clear that the tool reads system.parts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose how the data is aggregated, whether only active parts are counted, or what the exact 'time range' means. It also doesn't specify the format of the return value, such as whether a single row or list is returned.

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, terse sentence that lists the key result fields and the source, with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the most important information and is highly concise.

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 only two required string parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns, enabling an agent to call it and interpret the result. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of output representation (e.g., a single row vs. multiple rows), but that is a low-stakes for this simple 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?

The schema fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Table name' and 'Database name') and schema description coverage is 100%. Thus the description adds no more than the schema already provides, and the baseline of 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 specifies concrete outputs (part count, row count, on-disk size, time range) and names the source system.parts, which makes the tool's purpose readily understood. It is clearly different from sibling tools like list_tables, describe_table, and show_create_table, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or whether to prefer it over query when needing these specific metrics.

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