✓ SAFE: List tables/views with types and row counts. Supports pagination (max 1000). Use verbosity="summary" for names only.

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

The description states it is 'SAFE' and supports pagination with a max limit of 1000, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency details. It is partially transparent but not comprehensive.

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 short, front-loaded with the safety indicator, and uses two sentences. It is efficient but repeats the title exactly. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and pagination but omits database_name and the detailed verbosity output. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains verbosity values ('summary' for names only) and pagination implicitly, but does not clarify limit, offset, or database_name semantics. The value added beyond the schema is minimal.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides a hint on using verbosity='summary' for names only, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., describe_table, database_info). No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisite context are given.

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