search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions wildcard patterns but does not explain that results are split into table and column sections, how pagination works via offsets, or default limits. Important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 (11 words), which is concise but overly minimal for a tool with 8 parameters. It front-loads the purpose but omits important structural details like the two-part result (tables and columns) and pagination, making it less useful than it could be.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, 13 siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, how results are organized into tables and columns, or how to use offsets for pagination. An agent would need to infer the response structure from parameter names alone.

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 the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema already specify wildcard patterns, limits, and offsets. The tool-level description adds no new meaning beyond restating 'wildcard patterns' and does not clarify parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 clearly states the tool searches tables and columns using wildcard patterns to discover schema names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists all tables) and describe_table (which describes a specific table) by focusing on pattern-based search.

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 such as list_tables or describe_table. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions where this tool should be avoided.

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