search_db_usage

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the entire burden. It only lists search criteria but fails to disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, pagination, or sorting. The output schema is present but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action, though slightly terse.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain what 'DB usage' means, how results are structured, or provide any usage context beyond the search criteria.

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%, meeting the baseline. The description's mention of 'table/query/operation/host/path keywords' mirrors the 'query' parameter schema, adding no extra meaning. Other parameters (project_name, limit, link_status) are not elaborated.

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 'Search' and the resource 'DB usage', specifying the criteria by keyword types (table/query/operation/host/path). It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from related DB tools like db_query_index or db_impact_preview.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_data_flow_trace, db_impact_preview, or other search tools among the 60+ siblings.

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