search_db2_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one piece of non-schema information — the returned fields (row count, creation date, remarks) — but says nothing about truncation at maxResults, ordering, or how the environment default is resolved.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the supplementary return-field note. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to adequate, and mentioning return fields partially compensates for the absent output schema. It still leaves the agent without any sense of result ordering, truncation signaling, or whether 'row count' is live or from catalog statistics — a real ambiguity for Db2.

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%, and the schema documents wildcards, the type enum values, the schema/creator exact-match filter, the 50/200 result cap and the environment parameter in more detail than the description does. The description only echoes 'name pattern', so baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) plus the resource (Db2 catalog) and the object kinds it returns (tables, views, aliases) and the matching mode (name pattern). That is enough to distinguish it from search_dataset, search_members and search_uss_files, which target different resources, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'matching a name pattern' phrasing implies you call it when you know part of an object name, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the alternative (list_db2_subsystems for exploring subsystems, or exact-name lookup paths). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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