list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and runs immediately without confirmation. This is exactly the kind of safety and side-effect information an agent needs before invoking an unknown tool.

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 sentences deliver complete value: the first states exactly what the tool returns, and the second adds the critical behavioral context. There is no filler, redundant schema repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters and an output schema that presumably documents the return shape, the description covers everything necessary for an agent to call this tool confidently. It names the returned content, confirms read-only safety, and clarifies execution behavior. No material information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add parameter-level meaning where none exist. The schema already confirms 100% coverage with no properties.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List every table in the database with its row count and columns.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from describe_table, which targets a single table. There is no ambiguity about what the caller gets.

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 conveys clear use context: it is a read-only, immediate action with no confirmation required. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the contrast with confirmation-requiring siblings is implied. A small gap is the lack of explicit routing versus describe_table.

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