get_longest_running_queries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reads from the completed_requests catalog, implying only completed query executions are considered. It does not spell out ordering or result format, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the preference note is brief and clearly actionable.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It names the source catalog, gives a usage preference, and the surrounding schema/annotations fill in the remaining details.

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% and the only parameter, limit, already has a description and default value. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the schema carries that burden effectively.

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 action ('Get'), the result ('N longest running queries'), and the data source ('system:completed_requests catalog'). This differentiates it from sibling query analytics tools by focusing on elapsed runtime rather than response size, frequency, or indexing concerns.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over writing a raw system:completed_requests query via run_sql_plus_plus_query. This gives the agent a direct decision rule for at least one obvious alternative.

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