search_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds a scope behavior: omitting schema searches all visible non-system schemas. It does not describe return format, pagination, or authentication beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence separated by a semicolon. It immediately states what is searched and then gives the schema-omission behavior. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for a read-only search tool.

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?

The definition is adequate for invocation: required parameters and key semantics are covered. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what results look like, and it omits return or pagination behavior. Annotations and schema descriptions carry much of the context, leaving some gaps but not enough to prevent correct use.

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 descriptions cover 60% of parameters (connection, database, schema), and the description adds meaning for the query parameter by specifying table/column/comment search. It also restates the schema-omission behavior already documented on the schema parameter. It does not clarify the limit parameter or compensate fully for the uncovered parameter details.

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?

Description states a specific verb (搜索/search) and resource (精确database目录/exact database catalog), and specifies search fields: table name, column name, or comment. It also clarifies default schema scope when schema is omitted. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like scan_database or get_table_context, so it misses the top tier.

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 stated search fields and the note that schema can be omitted to search across all visible non-system schemas. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over scan_database, get_table_context, or list_schemas, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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