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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the dual-id model and which tool family consumes each id. It doesn't cover pagination or output format nuances beyond field/row-count mention.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the id-routing guidance following. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes what comes back (fields and row counts) and explains how to use the returned ids. An agent has everything needed to call and apply the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is high. The description appropriately spends its space on output shape instead of nonexistent inputs.

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 (List) and resource (tables) scoped to the current project, and specifies the returned content (fields name/type/id and row counts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ap_create_table and ap_delete_table.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to discover tables before querying or modifying data, and routes the agent downstream by naming the record/field tools that consume the returned id. It also distinguishes the two identifier values (id vs externalId) and where each is used.

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