Generate test data

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it returns SQL strings without executing, is deterministic with a seed, has a hard cap of 10000 rows, and does not resolve foreign keys. No contradiction with annotations.

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 five sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context, behavioral details, and caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage environment, output format, deterministic behavior, row cap, and foreign key resolution. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention error handling or the exact output structure.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on most parameters. While it mentions 'rows' and 'seed', it does not explain their meanings, constraints, or types beyond what the schema provides. The 'database' parameter has a description in schema, but the tool description adds no parameter context.

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 tool generates synthetic INSERT statements for a table, respecting column types and constraints. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generate_test_row_for' by generating multiple rows and not executing. The specific verb 'generate' and resource 'INSERT statements' provide clear differentiation.

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 notes it is useful for seeding dev/staging environments and explicitly warns that foreign keys are not resolved, requiring the caller to pre-seed referenced rows. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context is clear and provides actionable guidance.

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