Dynamic Tables List Catalog Integrations

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

The description adds valuable context regarding the returned data structure. It informs the agent about specific output fields like 'quoted_name' and 'quoted_qualified_name,' which is behavioral information beyond the standard safety annotations like 'readOnlyHint'.

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 two sentences are necessary: the first defines the resource, and the second defines the data format of the result. Both sentences are concise and efficiently convey unique information.

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?

The description is reasonably complete regarding the resource content and naming conventions. However, the lack of input parameter semantics (specifically for the 'pattern' parameter) prevents a higher score, as a functional piece of information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description offers no guidance on the input parameter 'pattern.' It does not explain if 'pattern' requires a regex, a partial string match, or an exact value, making the input semantics impossible to determine from the text.

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 is highly specific, listing exactly what is being listed (catalog integrations) and which platforms are included (Polaris, AWS Glue, Object Storage). This leaves no ambiguity about the resource.

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 implicitly defines the usage: use this tool when you need a list of integrations. While it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., comparing it to a 'describe' tool), the purpose is highly clear within its domain.

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