suggest_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the analysis method (column patterns, foreign keys, query patterns), which implies a read-only advisory operation, but it never states that the database is not modified, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Analyze a table's columns and existing indexes') before the outcome. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does but leaves the response shape (e.g., a list of suggested indexes with rationale) and the non-mutating guarantee unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both parameters ('table', 'connection') are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 verb+resource ('suggest... indexes' on a table) and enumerates the analysis basis (columns, existing indexes, foreign keys, common query patterns). An agent can distinguish this advisory tool from describe_table/get_schema, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from related tools like describe_table or get_table_stats. The usage context can only be inferred from the purpose statement.

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