list_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the MongoDB terminology mapping and nothing about return shape, object_type default behavior, or error cases (e.g., nonexistent 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with multiple backend dialects.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool spanning SQL and MongoDB with an object_type filter that defaults to 'table', the description gives no guidance on choosing object_type or on behavior for a missing schema, leaving gaps an agent would face at call time.

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 100%, so all three parameters (connection, object_type, schema_name) are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's only added semantic is the MongoDB mapping, which duplicates what the schema's object_type and schema_name descriptions already say.

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 (list) and resource (objects in a schema), and the parenthetical clarifies what 'objects' means per backend. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_schemas and get_object_details, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this differs from list_schemas, and no indication of prerequisites or the alternative of get_object_details for inspecting a single object. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.

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