dba_featureUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the 'persist' parameter materializes the result as a volatile table and returns the table name, which is non-obvious. No contradictions with annotations.

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 succinct: one sentence for purpose/usage, one sentence listing arguments with formats. No unnecessary words, and structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

While the tool has no output schema, the description only mentions return format for the persist case. It does not explain what is returned by default (e.g., a list of features), which is a gap. Additionally, there is no mention of pagination or result limits.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description matching the text. The description repeats the schema information without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states 'Report which Teradata product features were used during a specified date range,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. Among siblings, other dba tools have distinct purposes (e.g., dba_databaseSpace, dba_sessionInfo), so this tool is clearly differentiated.

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 provides clear contexts: 'when the user asks about feature adoption, which Teradata capabilities are being used, or how feature utilization has changed.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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