row_counts

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

The description discloses that counts are estimates, which is an important accuracy caveat, and that results are sorted descending. However, it says 'for all tables' while the limit parameter defaults to 50, so the truncation behavior is not disclosed in the description and no annotations are present to fill that gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; it conveys the metric, scope, estimation qualifier, and sort order in a compact, front-loaded manner.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential output (estimated row counts) and ordering. The schema documents the limit parameter, so the only notable gap is the 'all tables' wording conflicting with the default limit, which is minor for an introspection 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?

The only parameter, limit, is already fully described in the input schema ('Number of tables to show (default: 50)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('estimated row counts for all tables') plus the ordering behavior ('sorted by count descending'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like table_sizes and table_stats because the metric is explicitly row counts.

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 usage context is clear: this tool is for getting a quick overview of table row counts across the database. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the description minimizes confusion with siblings like query or list_tables.

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