search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: results are capped at 25 rows. However, it does not say whether that cap is truncation (with more results available) or a hard limit, nor does it confirm read-only behavior beyond the implication of 'Search' and INFORMATION_SCHEMA.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the scoping behavior and the result cap. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant.

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 described. But for a five-parameter search tool with zero schema coverage, leaving `use_wildcard` and `schema` unexplained is a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `databases` (omit = all databases) and loosely maps to `target` and `name`, but `schema` and especially `use_wildcard` (defaulting to true, which materially changes matching behavior) are left entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching table/column metadata via INFORMATION_SCHEMA. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like query or export_query, which operate on data rather than metadata. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names the sibling it displaces.

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?

'Omit `databases` to search every database on the server' gives one operational hint, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over query or list_databases. An agent must infer that this is the metadata-discovery tool rather than the data-retrieval tool.

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