List MySQL tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only in every environment' largely restates structured data. The description does add non-redundant value by naming the returned fields (type, engine, row estimate, storage size) in the absence of an output schema; pagination is mentioned but its behavior (defaults, max page size) is left to the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then return fields, then the safety note. No wasted clauses. The read-only sentence duplicates the annotations, costing it the top score, but it is short and clearly separated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned columns, which is exactly what an agent cannot learn elsewhere. Read-only status, filtering and pagination are all signalled. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on empty results, no addressing of the openWorldHint (multiple configured connections), and no cross-reference to sibling tools.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description says 'pagination' and 'optional name filter', which maps to limit/offset/name_contains, but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents (case-insensitive substring, schema defaulting to the configured database). It provides no detail for the undescribed limit/offset bounds.

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 and resource ('List tables and views in a MySQL schema') plus scope modifiers (pagination, name filter). An agent can tell this apart from mysql_query or mysql_describe_table by resource, but the description never names a sibling or the boundary between them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: enumerate tables/views in a schema, optionally narrowed by name_contains. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as mysql_describe_table for column detail or mysql_query for row data, so routing is left to inference.

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