get_db_metadata_summary

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, the description adds genuine behavioral context by stating the operation is 'sampled over up to max_tables tables,' implying bounded, approximate work rather than full scans. It also describes the aggregation (rows/files/bytes) so agents know the result is summary-level. It does not discuss auth or rates, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 leads with the core action and packs the key qualifiers (counts, aggregates, sampling bound) efficiently.

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?

The description is sufficient for selecting the tool and understanding the general result shape, especially given the read-only annotations and presence of an output schema. The main gap is the unstated behavior of include_table_stats and absence of any note on how defaults such as max_tables=50 apply, but these are minor for a metadata-summary tool.

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 carry parameter meaning; it does explain max_tables ('sampled over up to max_tables tables') and implicitly maps db_name to 'a database.' However, it never mentions include_table_stats, its effect, or defaults, leaving one of three parameters under-described.

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 uses the verb 'summarize' with resource 'database' and lists concrete outputs (table/view counts, aggregated rows/files/bytes, sampling bound). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_db_table_list and get_table_size without 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 implies a database-level overview use case but never explains when to choose it over siblings such as get_db_table_list or get_cluster_overview. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool names, so usage must be inferred from the name and content.

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