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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or whether the list is dynamic or static. The description only states the action, offering no transparency into side effects or result structure.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the key information: what is listed and for what scope.

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?

The description gives the core action but lacks context about how the returned table list connects to sibling oracle tools (e.g., oracle_roll, oracle_table_view) and does not explain the return value structure, especially since there is no output schema. For a simple tool it is minimally viable, but the lack of integration guidance leaves gaps.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema — it mentions 'system' but does not clarify valid values or provide examples. Since schema coverage is high, the lack of additional parameter detail is acceptable but not improved.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('oracle tables') with a clear scope ('for a system'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oracle_list_games and oracle_list_recipes by naming a different object type, and from oracle_table_view by focusing on listing rather than viewing a specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oracle_table_view (to view a table's data) or oracle_ask (to get an answer from an oracle). There are no exclusions, preconditions, or explicit alternative mentions, leaving the usage context merely implied by the verb and resource.

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