Programmability List Event Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only return-shape context and says nothing about account-level scope (relevant given openWorldHint), result limits, or ordering.

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, front-loaded sentences; the core purpose leads. The second sentence spends space on return fields that an output schema already provides, so it isn't fully waste-free.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-field explanation is redundant rather than helpful. What an agent actually needs — how the filters combine, default scope when database/schema are omitted, and result size — is absent.

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 a middling 67%, and the description adds no parameter guidance at all — notably the 'pattern' filter is undocumented in both places, and it never says that 'database'/'schema_name' restrict the listing. The schema's own descriptions instead talk about quoting conventions, which the description does not clarify.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List event tables") and narrows the scope by explaining what event tables are for (logging, tracing, SPCS telemetry), which separates it from the general tables_list_tables sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when it wants event/logging tables rather than ordinary tables. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., tables_list_tables) despite many overlapping siblings.

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