search_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the core search behavior. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, partial vs. exact matching, search scope (e.g., current database only), or return format, which leaves significant ambiguity.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'search' and immediately states the target resources, earning its place without redundancy.

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?

Given its simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core idea but lacks contextual details such as whether it searches within a specific database or across databases, and what the return value actually is. This creates ambiguity especially in light of sibling tools like 'search_across_databases'.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter meaning ('Search keyword to match table names, column names, or descriptions'), and the description does not add additional semantic value beyond this. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 clearly states the tool searches for tables, columns, and descriptions using a keyword, which identifies the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'search_across_databases', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_across_databases' or 'describe_table'. The description only states the basic function without any exclusions or preferred use cases.

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