Warehouse status & selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, matching the description's 'READ_ONLY' claim, so no contradiction. The description adds useful context via the transparent selection precedence rules, which go beyond annotations. But it doesn't explain what 'list' or 'status' returns or any rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the selection logic concisely. Every sentence adds value, though the safety classification sentence slightly duplicates annotation information.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's scope and the critical selection precedence, though it could better differentiate from the sibling 'manage_sql_warehouse' for full completeness.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the enum for 'action' and the meaning of 'warehouse_id' and 'require_running'. The description reinforces the selection precedence but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pairing ('Inspect SQL warehouses and the server's warehouse-selection logic'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'manage_sql_warehouse', which risks agent confusion about which tool handles warehouse operations.

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 through the selection logic ('an explicit warehouse_id wins, then DBX_MCP_DEFAULT_WAREHOUSE_ID...'), which helps an agent understand when selection applies. But it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus 'manage_sql_warehouse' or how 'select' relates to SQL execution tools like execute_sql.

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