get_query_performance

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 does add real value by warning that database content is untrusted and returned values may contain injected instructions. It leaves other traits implicit: that this is read-only, that results are grouped per MCP tool, and whether truncation occurs when limit is hit.

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 tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the safety warning follows without padding. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only analytics tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and prompt-injection safety. The one notable gap is routing guidance against the many overlapping performance siblings in the toolset.

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%, so limit, slow_only, and tool_filter are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about their semantics. A baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither clarifies nor obscures the parameters.

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 detailed query performance breakdown') and adds the distinguishing scope 'by tool', which the tool_filter parameter corroborates. It does not, however, separate itself from close siblings such as analyze_query_performance or get_performance_stats, so an agent must guess between them.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this over analyze_query_performance, detect_query_bottlenecks, get_optimization_insights, or get_performance_stats, which are the obvious alternatives. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about what 'short' vs 'long' scope means.

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