list_subpartitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only listing and surfaces the useful constraint that the target must be a composite-partitioned table, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence's prerequisite framing is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could have described the shape of the returned subpartition listing. It is adequate rather than 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note that schema is optional and should be omitted rather than guessed. The description's 'Requires schema and table' actually understates this, adding no meaning beyond the schema and mildly conflicting with the optionality.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List subpartitions') and narrows scope to composite-partitioned tables, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_partitions without naming it explicitly. The resource name itself carries the differentiation, but no direct contrast is drawn.

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?

Only guidance is 'Requires schema and table,' which is a prerequisite rather than when-to-use guidance. No mention of when to prefer this over list_partitions or list_ind_partitions, and no exclusions.

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