get_partitions

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

The annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful constraints: the operation is a SHOW-style listing, returns per-partition statistics, and only works on partitioned tables. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: what is listed, what comes with it, what command backs it, and when it is valid.

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 metadata-listing tool with two self-evident parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description is sufficient. It conveys the core behavioral constraint (partitioned tables) and return nature (per-partition statistics) without redundant detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions partitions and partitioned tables generically. db_name and table_name are left to the agent to infer from their names; no parameter-level guidance is provided.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List partitions') and further specifies 'with per-partition statistics', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also states the SHOW PARTITIONS underlying command, which distinguishes it from other table metadata tools like get_table_schema or get_column_stats.

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?

It gives clear usage context with 'Only valid for partitioned tables', telling the agent when the tool applies and implicitly not to use it for non-partitioned tables. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the condition is explicit and actionable.

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