list_sql_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the admin role requirement and the beta/preview API status, which are important operational constraints. For a simple list operation this is solid, though it does not mention pagination or error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: the action, the access requirement, and the API stability warning. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it states what is returned, scoping, access requirements, and beta/preview risk. The main gaps are alternative-tool routing and workspace parameter semantics, but the overall context is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.

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 missing parameter documentation. The description only repeats that the action applies to a workspace, without explaining whether the workspace value is an ID, name, or path, or how to obtain it. This adds little beyond the schema's property name and type.

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: 'Return the list of custom SQL pools for a workspace.' The phrase 'custom SQL pools' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_warehouses or list_sql_endpoints, and the workspace scoping is explicit.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires workspace admin role') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as list_sql_pool_insights or get_sql_pools_status. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is present.

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