search_catalog

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It informs the agent that the search operates on cached metadata, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, or what 'cached' means in terms of freshness.

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 sentence, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is concise but slightly under-specified, as it does not touch on parameters or usage alternatives.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves several gaps: no parameter guidance, no usage alternatives, and no explanation of the cached-data behavior. For an agent trying to select among many sibling tools, this description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the query, max_results, or connection_id parameters. For a tool with a required query and additional controls, the complete absence of parameter semantics is a significant gap.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and precisely scopes the resource as 'cached tables, columns, descriptions and relationships.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documents, which targets indexed documents.

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 clearly implies this tool is for searching the catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like search_documents or list_tables, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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