sql_editor_sas_functions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by revealing this is a static reference dataset sourced from data/sas_functions.json and by enumerating the dimensions carried per function. With no output schema, that enumeration is the agent's only signal about return shape, and it does the job. It stops short of stating whether the matrix is complete or how large it is, which would have made it a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the payload fields, with the backing file cited in parentheses at the end. Every clause carries information; the phrasing is somewhat compressed and would read more easily split into two sentences, but nothing 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the payload contains per function, where it comes from, and why it exists. No authentication, pagination, or side-effect concerns apply to this tool, so nothing material 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full-matrix read with no filtering argument, which is consistent with the empty 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 names a specific resource — the SAS function support matrix used by the editor's pre-run check — and enumerates what each row contains (PROC SQL / FedSQL / FedSQL-in-CAS support, SingleStore pushdown, SingleStore equivalent, recommended alternative). An agent can tell this is a reference-data lookup rather than an execution tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sas_fedsql_check sibling, which plausibly covers overlapping ground.

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 'for the editor's pre-run check' implies the context in which this data is consumed, so usage is hinted at. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the obvious alternative (sas_fedsql_check) for an agent deciding between the two. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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