list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior, that results include row counts, but it says nothing about whether those counts are exact or estimated, whether the call is read-only, or whether counting rows is expensive on large schemas.

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 lines with the core behavior front-loaded and the parameter note immediately after. Nothing is wasted, and the docstring-style Args block is easy to scan despite being slightly incongruous in a prose description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered. What is missing is the relational context this tool needs: how it differs from list_schemas and when to follow it with describe_table or get_schema_relationships.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema's only parameter is ambiguously typed as a string defaulting to "", so the description has to compensate. It does: it identifies the parameter as schema/owner and resolves the empty default by explaining it means the current user.

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 and resource ("Lists tables and views") scoped to a schema and adds the return content ("with row counts"). That scope distinguishes it from list_schemas, but the description never names the sibling it is closest to, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as describe_table for column detail or list_schemas for enumerating schemas. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word "Lists".

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