list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'Token for pagination' hints at pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, or describe any permission or failure characteristics.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a clean, well-organized Args list. Every line adds information without redundancy or filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are easy to scan.

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 read-style listing tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it states the purpose, lists all five parameters, and includes pagination-related parameters. It could be more complete with explicit usage context, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by defining every parameter: database_name, catalog_name, expression, max_results, and next_token. Each definition adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it stays at a surface level without deeper constraints or usage notes.

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 tables in a database.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases and get_table_metadata. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_databases for databases or get_table_metadata for a single table. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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