schema_explorer_skew

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this while adding concrete provenance (TABLE_STATISTICS, COLUMNAR_SEGMENTS) an agent cannot get from annotations. It also previews the returned metrics, going beyond the safety flag without contradicting it.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, then parameters are listed under a clear Args header. The opening sentence is dense but every clause maps to a real output field, so little is wasted.

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, the description takes on the job of describing what is returned (rows, data, skew %, largest partitions, shard key, explanation), and it does so thoroughly enough for an agent to decide and invoke. Only the explicit sibling-relationship guidance is missing.

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 parameter meaning and it largely does: both database and table are flagged case-sensitive, and table's optional/omit-for-every-table semantics are explained. This compensates well for the empty schema, though it does not restate defaults explicitly.

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 names a specific analysis (data skew) and enumerates exactly what it reports: rows/data per partition and per leaf, skew %, largest partitions, shard key, and a plain explanation. It is clearly a distinct schema_explorer capability, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like schema_explorer_table or schema_explorer_analyze.

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?

It locates the tool ("Schema Explorer's Distribution tab / database 'Check skew'") and gives the omit-table-for-all-tables rule, which is useful invocation context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance relative to the many sibling schema_explorer tools.

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