sec_userDbPermissions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context that it lists 'directly' granted permissions, distinguishing from inherited roles. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight, though could mention performance or required auth.

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 and well-structured: a clear first sentence, followed by usage guidelines, then a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, earning the highest score.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating idempotent/read-only, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on the return format for the default non-persist case, leaving a minor gap.

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 extra meaning: for user_name it notes 'Requires a user name' and for persist it explains 'materializes result as a volatile table and returns table name,' which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 lists database-level access permissions for a specific Teradata user, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool sec_userRoles, meeting the high bar for purpose clarity.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when the user asks what a named user can DO in each database' and 'Do NOT use to see what roles a user has — use sec_userRoles for that.' This clearly defines when to use and when not, with a named alternative.

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