list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'No NX call is made', telling the agent the call is a purely local metadata lookup that does not touch the model. It stops short of describing result ordering or truncation behavior, though an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent clause maps to a parameter, with no filler. The line-broken, fragment-style formatting is slightly harder to parse than flowing prose, but nothing is redundant.

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?

Both parameters are described, an output schema covers the return shape, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing essential to calling this two-parameter read tool is missing. The only optional addition would be an explicit pointer to describe_table/read_table as the follow-up step.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: 'search' is specified as case-insensitive text matched against both table name and title, with example queries ('load', 'section', 'design'). 'product' is explained only loosely as 'keep only tables that product supports', leaving the mapping of the gen/civil enum values to table families unstated.

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 ('List the tables this server can read') and immediately distinguishes the two catalog families it covers: '/db model data' (e.g. NODE) and '/DESIGN design parameters' (e.g. DESIGN/STEEL/DSTL). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like list_result_tables or read_table without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the reader infers this is a discovery/enumeration step that precedes describe_table or read_table, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. There is no exclusion relative to the closely named sibling list_result_tables, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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