database_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns row estimates, engine, and sizes for all tables, but omits behavioral traits such as performance impact, whether it queries information_schema, or if it uses caching. Adequate but lacks depth for a potentially heavy operation.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose and content. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 and a composite result, the description should ideally hint at the return structure. It specifies the included data (row estimates, engine, sizes) but not the format (e.g., array of objects). The context of sibling tools suggests this is a high-level summary, but completeness is adequate rather than excellent.

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?

Both parameters (database, connection) are already described in the input schema with clear definitions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 provides a composite overview of all tables with row estimates, engine, and sizes. It uses a specific verb ('composite') and resource ('all tables'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tables (names only) or table_stats (per-table details).

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 implies usage for obtaining a quick database summary, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_tables or table_stats. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

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