compare_record_counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds 'useful for capacity planning' but no further behavioral details (e.g., behavior on missing tables, output format). It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though the mention of 'time periods' could be removed or aligned with actual parameters.

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 the annotations cover safety and schema describes parameters, the description is adequate for a read-only comparison tool. However, it lacks explanation of the comparison format (e.g., return structure) and the 'time periods' feature is not supported, leaving some context gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('tables' and 'query'). The description adds no new parameter insight and introduces 'time periods' which is not a parameter, potentially confusing. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 compares record counts across multiple tables or time periods, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_table_record_count' which likely handles single tables, but the mention of 'time periods' is not reflected in the input schema, causing minor ambiguity.

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 notes it is 'useful for capacity planning', providing a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_table_record_count' or 'trend_query', nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites.

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