find_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the wildcard-matching behavior ('supports % wildcards'), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about case sensitivity, whether the search spans all schemas/databases, or performance/scope limits on a catalog-wide scan.

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 short, front-loaded lines: the core behavior first, then a parameter note with examples. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical and the example overlap slightly in conveying the same wildcard idea.

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-format explanation is not needed, and one parameter is the only input. What is missing is search scope (all databases/schemas?), matching semantics, and any routing guidance relative to execute_query for the same information.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains the exact-name vs. pattern distinction and gives concrete examples ('customer_id' or '%email%'). That is real semantic value beyond the bare 'Column Name' schema title, though it omits wildcard placement rules (prefix vs. suffix).

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find tables that contain a column name'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tables, describe_table, or execute_query. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 alternative such as execute_query against information_schema is mentioned. Usage is only implied by the stated purpose (schema discovery by column name), which fits the 'implied usage' bar.

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