schema_overview

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only structural metadata is returned, no data rows, and mentions output format options. This adequately sets expectations for a read-only, non-destructive tool.

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, no redundant text. The purpose and key constraints are front-loaded. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, presence of an output schema, and high schema description coverage, the description is complete. It explains scope, constraints, and parameter nuances sufficiently.

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%. The description adds value beyond the schema: for 'format' it explains token usage vs human readability, and for 'schema' it clarifies it only overrides outside production. This helps the agent decide parameter values.

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 summarizes structural metadata including tables, views, primary keys, and foreign keys. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not reveal data rows, indicating a broader scope than inspect_table or list_tables.

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 implies usage for structural overview but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use which. The constraint 'Strictly constrained to structural metadata' gives context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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