dba_tableUsageImpact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly inherits those traits. Beyond annotations, the description adds behavioral detail for the 'persist' parameter: 'materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name.' This is a valuable side-effect disclosure. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if database not found), which would strengthen transparency.

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 concise (6 informative sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then usage guidelines, condition, alternative, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., what columns, how results are presented). It only says 'identify... which users and tables' without specifying structure. Parameter descriptions and usage guidelines are thorough, but the missing output description is a notable gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing 'Required — do not pass empty string' for database_name and restating defaults. This extra clarification justifies a 4, but it largely mirrors the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Identify which users and tables are driving the most query and resource activity within a specific Teradata database.' It uses a specific verb ('identify'), resource ('users and tables'), and context (specific database). It also distinguishes from sibling tool dba_resusageSummary by directing system-wide queries elsewhere.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks who is hitting a named database hardest...' and when not to: 'ONLY call when the user has specified a database name — if no database name appears in the message, ask for clarification.' Also provides a clear alternative: 'For system-wide CPU, IO, and memory metrics... use dba_resusageSummary instead.'

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