list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are permission-scoped to the read login, and results are paginated at 100 per page. It stops short of stating ordering, total counts, or whether system schemas appear.

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 zero filler; the resource scope and the returned fields are front-loaded, with the pagination detail trailing. Nothing is repeated from the name or title, and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description still names the key returned fields. Pagination and the permission scope are both covered for a low-complexity, three-parameter read tool. Only result ordering and default schema behavior are left unstated, which is minor.

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%, so each parameter including cursor, schema and database is already documented in the schema. The description's only added semantic is the 100-per-page pagination cadence, which implies the cursor workflow but does not explain it further. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a precisely enumerated resource: tables, views, materialized views and foreign tables. It also states the returned fields (schema, name, kind) and the page size. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_schemas or describe_table, leaving that inference to the caller.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before describe_table or read_rows, and that it lists only objects visible to the read login. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_schemas for schema-level discovery).

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