List Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that an unspecified schema falls back to a system default and that the filter supports wildcards, but discloses nothing beyond that (e.g. result cap or ordering).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The default-schema and wildcard details are secondary but relevant, so minor trimming room remains rather than excess.

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 values need no explanation, and both optional parameters are fully documented. For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, this is essentially complete, with only cross-tool routing left unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the wildcard filter and default-schema behavior rather than adding new format or constraint details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'List all views in a schema (library)' — so an agent knows exactly what object type is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_tables or list_schemas, but the resource noun makes the separation obvious from name alone.

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 (call it to enumerate views) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative. It also never says when not to use it, e.g. versus search_tables or describe_table, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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