List Schemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the (libraries) terminology mapping, which is useful context, but nothing about result scope or limits beyond what annotations provide. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the optional filter detail. Every clause 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-required-parameter listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the only parameter's behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the filter parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the wildcard syntax and an example. The description restates the wildcard behavior in one clause without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (schemas/libraries) in a named database, and the parenthetical 'libraries' disambiguates the Db2 for i terminology. An agent can distinguish this from list_tables or list_views without opening any schema.

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 optional filter usage is stated ('Optionally filter by name pattern'), which implies when the parameter applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings or when-not-to-use guidance. For an inventory-listing tool the usage context is largely self-evident, so this is adequate but not rich.

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