search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the result cap of 50 hits, which is real operational context absent from structured fields. However, it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, nor anything about truncation signaling or connection requirements.

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 compact clauses that front-load the action and scope, then the usage context. No padding or redundancy; could only be improved by adding the alternative tools, which is a content rather than structure issue.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what a hit looks like (table, column, type). It communicates the 50-result cap but leaves the shape of results to be discovered, which is a modest gap for a discovery-oriented tool.

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 the single keyword parameter and its case-insensitive matching behavior are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same matching scope without adding format or syntax guidance, 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 (search) and resource (current database schema) with explicit match scope: table names, column names, and field types. It is clearly distinguishable from describe_table and list_tables in intent, though it does not name those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

'Suitable for quickly locating relevant tables or fields in a large database' gives an implied usage context, but never states when to prefer this over list_tables or describe_table, nor any preconditions (e.g. requires an active connection). The routing guidance is left to inference.

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