schema_explorer_analyze_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Runs nothing', which is a meaningful guarantee beyond the hint. It also discloses the return content (stat age, outdated/missing columns, row-count drift, staleness reasons), though it does not address pagination or result size.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no redundancy, though the parenthetical statistics list is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description describes the return payload adequately, and both parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage. For a read-only planning tool with readOnlyHint, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents both parameters, flags case-sensitivity for both, and explains that omitting 'tables' defaults to every base table. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema titles.

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 ('Read-only plan for ANALYZE TABLE') and enumerates exactly what the plan contains: per-table statistics, staleness diagnosis, and exact statements. 'Runs nothing' cleanly separates it from the sibling schema_explorer_analyze, which presumably executes.

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 phrase 'Runs nothing' implies this is the preview/plan counterpart to an executing analyze tool, which gives usage context. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (schema_explorer_analyze) or states when to prefer the plan over execution, leaving the routing to inference.

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