get_index_recommendations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose but doesn't reveal key traits like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get index recommendations') and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately sized for its informational content.

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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'index recommendations' entail (e.g., format, criteria), how results are returned, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 4 optional parameters with their types and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'database optimization' context, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating value.

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 action ('Get index recommendations') and purpose ('for database optimization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_optimization_insights' or 'detect_query_bottlenecks' which might also relate to database optimization, missing explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during performance tuning), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many database-related siblings.

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