find_waste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it declares read-only/'never changes the workspace', documents projection withholding below 3 days and low_confidence below 7 days, explains that USD is None when unknown, and specifies that failed checks surface under `errors` with the table and required GRANT rather than being silently counted as $0.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the read-only guarantee, then return semantics, then check families — a sensible order. It is dense and the check enumeration is long, but each clause carries scope or threshold information rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the return fields (measured_saving_usd, measured_waste_dbu, observation_days, projected_30d_usd/_dbu, low_confidence, errors) and their caveats. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter analysis tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 compensate, and it does for all four parameters: `days` (1..365), `max_rows` (1..1000 per check), `warehouse_idle_pct` (idle_pct ≥ threshold, default 80), and `max_autotermination_minutes` (clusters off or above threshold, default 60). Ranges and comparison semantics are exactly what the bare integer schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find wasted DBUs') with an explicit time scope, then enumerates the three check families (Classic, Serverless, Delta) it covers. That enumeration separates it cleanly from cost_summary and top_cost_drivers, which report spend rather than waste findings.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scope ('wasted DBUs', 'proposals only' for Delta), but the description never says when to pick this over cost_summary, top_cost_drivers, or cost_review_report, nor when to follow up with propose_fix. The agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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