Search Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the schema allowlist restricts which libraries are searched, and Q*/SYS* libraries are skipped by default — scope behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, match targets, then wildcard syntax and scope rules. Dense and efficient, though the scope sentence could be tightened.

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 not be explained, and the description adequately covers search scope and system-library handling. The only real gap is the missing routing against list_tables, which leaves a sibling-selection ambiguity for the agent.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema, including wildcard syntax and the include_system interdependency. The description restates the allowlist/system rules without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 clear verb+resource ('Find tables') and names the specific match surfaces (TABLE_NAME, SYSTEM_TABLE_NAME, TABLE_TEXT), which is more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling list_tables, so an agent must infer that this is the filtered variant.

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 explains search scope behavior (allowlist, system-library skipping) which implies when results are constrained, but it never says when to prefer this over list_tables or search_columns. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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