list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are restricted to operator-authorized tables, so absence of a table is meaningful — but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the important constraint (authorized tables only) is front-loaded rather than buried. Every word 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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main behavioral caveat but leaves the return contract undefined and no output schema exists to fill the gap — the agent cannot tell whether it receives names, full metadata, or a paginated envelope. No mention of empty-result or authorization-failure behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter schema is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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") plus a meaningful scope qualifier ("explicitly authorized by the operator"). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings describe_table or read_partition, though the list/describe/read distinction is inferable from their names.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to call list_tables first or go straight to describe_table, or whether the authorization filter means it will silently omit tables the agent may be looking for.

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