get_index_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait, that returned database content is untrusted and should not be treated as instructions. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, whether recommendations are advisory or applied, or the shape of the results.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the purpose leads and the safety caveat follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and every clause carries information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally sketch what a recommendation looks like and how it is scoped. It covers the injection risk but omits the return shape and any indication of whether results are read-only suggestions, leaving a gap for a 4-parameter analytical 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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are optional, so the schema already documents limit, schema, database, and impact_threshold in detail. The description adds no filtering syntax, default behavior, or interaction between these filters, leaving it at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get index recommendations') plus the domain (database optimization), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_optimization_insights, detect_query_bottlenecks, or analyze_query_performance, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the many performance-oriented siblings. 'For database optimization' is a topical hint, not a routing rule, so an agent must guess whether this or get_optimization_insights is the right call.

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