extended_stats

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 does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) the 'recommendations' have, or any permission requirements. The word 'list' implies read-only but it is not stated.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler words.

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 presence of three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of the recommendations, how parameters affect results, or what a response looks like, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (table, schema, database_name). It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and constraints already present in the input 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with resource 'extended statistics' and adds 'provide recommendations for multi-column correlations', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_indexes and list_partitions by focusing on extended statistics and correlation analysis.

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 implies usage for analyzing multi-column correlations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is only implicit.

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