list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that estimated_rows is a planner estimate, null if never analyzed, and explicitly 'no scans' — signaling this is a cheap metadata operation. It does not state permissions/read-only status explicitly, but 'List' plus the cost disclosure covers most of the behavioral picture.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and outputs, then the filter behavior. Every clause carries information (return fields, estimate caveat, no-scan, match semantics) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of truth; it describes the returned columns and the cost profile, which is appropriate for this breadth. It could still mention read-only safety or how to go deeper (describe_tables), but it is nearly complete for a simple listing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value beyond it: the filter is case-insensitive and matches against both table AND column names, where the schema only says 'Substring of a table or column name'. That extra matching semantics helps correct 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tables') plus the scope ('outside system schemas') and the output fields, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling describe_tables, leaving the boundary between 'list' and 'describe' to inference.

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?

Usage is implied (a discovery/browsing tool for locating tables and columns via the filter), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to describe_tables for detail. The agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.

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