Top Bad Tables

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says results are top bad tables by health score; it does not state ordering direction, what 'bad' means, whether filters beyond the schema are supported, or what fields are returned. Much of the behavior is left to inference.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the essential selection logic without unnecessarily repeating the title or schema fields.

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 three-parameter list tool with a complete schema, the description is usable but still has gaps: no definition of health score, no explicit statement of ordering or limit behavior beyond the schema cap, and no guidance on when this tool is preferable to sibling ranking tools. Adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters, including defaults, nullability, and the cap on `top_n`. The description adds little beyond echoing the health-score concept, so the 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('top bad tables'), and a selection criterion ('table health score'), which is enough to understand the core function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling `top_hot_tables`, but the 'bad' vs 'hot' wording and the scoring criterion give implicit differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings like `top_hot_tables`, `table_overview`, and `analyze_slow_queries_topn`, the agent must infer when a health-score-based 'bad table' ranking is preferred. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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