get_sql_pools_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the workspace admin role requirement and notes that the tool targets a beta/preview API endpoint that may change. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by alternative tools, and then important caveats. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy.

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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the exact return field, admin requirements, API stability, and clear sibling tool differentiation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 for the single `workspace` parameter. It says 'for a workspace' but does not clarify whether the value should be a workspace ID, name, URL, or provide any format or constraints. The parameter meaning is largely inferred from its name.

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's purpose: 'Return whether custom SQL Pools are enabled for a workspace.' It also explicitly names what it returns (the `customSQLPoolsEnabled` switch), distinguishing it from related pool-list and pool-detail tools.

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 for when to use this tool vs alternatives: it returns only the workspace-level switch, while `list_sql_pools` is for the pool list and `get_sql_pool` is for a single pool's details. This is direct and unambiguous.

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