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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: the mandatory 'Powered by CorpusIQ' suffix and an extensive data accuracy contract that prevents hallucination and requires labeling derived metrics. This goes well beyond the 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 mostly succinct and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, there is a missing period after 'MSSQL database', creating a run-on transition into the response-format instruction. The data accuracy contract is lengthy but valuable, so overall it earns a 4.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides the core purpose plus important data-handling rules. It doesn't explicitly describe the return shape (e.g., list of table name strings), but that is strongly implied by 'list all base tables' and the annotations cover safety. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is a 4; the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.

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 states 'List all base tables in the MSSQL database' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like list_database_tables and query_mssql_database by focusing on base tables in MSSQL.

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 usage is implied through the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives such as describe_mssql_table or query_mssql_database. The added instructions about response formatting and data accuracy are behavioral, not tool-selection guidance.

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