sample

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It does disclose a key behavior: genuine randomness via TABLESAMPLE, avoiding physical adjacency bias. But it does not explicitly state read-only status, potential errors, or performance implications beyond 'no scan'. The description is honest about the sampling method but lacks completeness on edge cases or side effects.

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 with a parenthetical, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: 'genuinely random rows' sets expectations, and the parenthetical explains the implementation without unnecessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema is present (so return structure need not be described), the description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, does not explain the profile parameter, and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., table size). It covers the core purpose but leaves an agent to infer important usage context, especially for non-default parameters.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It hints at n with 'a few' (though n defaults to 5), but does not define n, table, or profile explicitly. The profile parameter, which is nullable, is entirely unaddressed. The description adds minimal value over the schema's structure.

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 what the tool does: 'A few genuinely random rows from a table'. It specifies the verb (sample) and resource (table), and adds unique context by mentioning TABLESAMPLE and the avoidance of scan and LIMIT bias. This distinguishes it from generic query/fetch 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need random rows), and the parenthetical about TABLESAMPLE and no scan suggests it's better than a plain LIMIT for randomness. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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