List available tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds beyond annotations by stating that results are grouped by database and include index configuration. No behavioral traits (like performance impact or pagination) are discussed, but for a read-only inventory tool this is adequate.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description gives a sufficient mental model: inventory, grouping by database, and inclusion of index configuration. Could be slightly more explicit about the return structure (e.g., whether it's flat or nested), but fine given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both optional parameters (database filter and namespace override). The description does not elaborate further on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expected when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool provides an 'Inventory of every table in the schema index, grouped by database, plus the index configuration.' It uses specific verbs and nouns, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_schema by indicating when to use it (when search_schema returns empty).

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 explicitly says 'Use it to orient yourself, or when search_schema comes back empty,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or use get_table_schema, but the positive guidance is strong and helps an agent decide between siblings.

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