Dynamic Tables List Iceberg Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a note about quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name output fields and does not discuss permissions, pagination, or other operational behavior.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is useful but partially redundant with the available output schema.

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 covers the listing scope and output-field quirks, and annotations plus the output schema carry much of the remaining burden. However, it leaves the pattern parameter unexplained and gives no selection guidance against sibling listing tools.

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 only 67%, and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters, including the undocumented pattern parameter. It therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 Apache Iceberg tables) and scopes it to account, database, or schema. This distinguishes it from generic table-listing siblings by resource type, though it does not explicitly call out dynamic-table siblings.

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 by the resource scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives such as tables_list_tables or dynamic_tables_list_dynamic_tables.

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