list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns row counts and descriptions, supports two kinds of filters, and hints at cost characteristics by redirecting large databases to search_schema. It does not detail limit, ordering, or pagination, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by the annotation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds filter semantics and a routing hint, making every sentence earn 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 read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, return content, filtering, and performance-aware routing. It omits only limit and connection semantics, which are partially self-evident from their defaults and sibling context, so it is slightly above adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains 'schema' and 'pattern', including wildcard syntax, but says nothing about 'limit' or 'connection', leaving two of the four parameters underspecified.

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 states a concrete verb ('List') and a precise resource ('tables and views') with the included payload ('row counts and descriptions'). It also clarifies the filtering dimensions, and the final sentence orients it against search_schema, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative (search_schema) and a triggering condition ('big database'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed to select between two enumeration tools. The filter hints ('schema name and/or a name pattern') also clarify the intended use case.

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