List database tables

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 known. The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond that: it specifies that the tool returns row counts, column names, descriptions, and the relationships between the four specific tables. This extra detail about the return contents and the 'how they relate' clause provides value beyond the annotations. It stops short of mentioning potential limitations like pagination, but given the small fixed table set, this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, all of high value. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the directional guidance. No redundant wording or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

For a no-parameter discovery tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and how it relates to siblings. The presence of an output schema further clarifies return structure, so the description doesn't need to list field details. The tool is simple, and the description is fully complete on its own.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description has no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when the tool has no parameters, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%.

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 ('List every table in the shop database') and lists the exact data returned (row count, column names, descriptions). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'Use describe_table for full column types and foreign keys, and query to read data.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the alternatives.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first to discover the database structure,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also names the alternatives for more detailed needs (describe_table for schema details, query for data reads), giving explicit routing guidance without ambiguity.

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