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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields (row counts, RLS flag) and the required auth scope (database:read), which an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It stops short of noting pagination behavior, which is only visible in the cursor parameter.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the resource and its returned attributes, followed by the permission scope. There is no redundant restatement of the title or filler wording.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the definition supplies what an agent needs: what is listed, the branch scoping, the extra fields returned, and the required read scope. Remaining details such as defaults and pagination are fully covered by the input schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (limit, branch, cursor, schema, project_id, organization_id) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description mentions branch scoping but adds no format, ordering, or default behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource combination (list tables) and adds concrete scope detail: tables on a branch, with row counts and row level security status. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like schema.apply or sql.execute, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named tables.describe.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Tables on a branch' and the declared 'Scope: database:read' gives the agent the authorization context needed to decide it can call this. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., when to prefer tables.describe for column-level detail), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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