idescat.list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination (though limit/offset parameters exist), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description only indicates a read-like operation but lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage context. Every word 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?

While an output schema is present, the description fails to cover key aspects like pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters) and error handling. Given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, but the tool description adds no information about the parameters. It mentions statistics_id and node_id only in the context of output, leaving all parameter semantics unaddressed. This severely hinders correct tool invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('browse tables') and the context ('within an IDESCAT statistic node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like idescat_list_nodes and idescat_list_statistics. However, 'browse' is somewhat vague; explicitly stating 'list tables' would improve clarity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by directing the agent to use the returned IDs with idescat_list_table_geos before metadata or data calls, establishing a clear sequence for tool use. It does not, however, specify when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like idescat_get_table_metadata.

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