Recipes Discover Schema Lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that this is a 'composite recipe' aggregating multiple lookups — but says nothing about scope when database/schema are omitted or about output volume for large schemas.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 'Composite recipe' prefix signals the aggregation nature immediately. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is annotation-covered. What is missing is disambiguation from the numerous sibling listing/describe tools and from the horizon lineage tools, which matters given the name mismatch.

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?

Both parameters carry full schema descriptions (100% coverage), including the quoting rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes nothing beyond that baseline — e.g., it never explains that both parameters default to null and therefore fall back to the current session context.

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 (discover) and resources (all tables and views plus their column definitions) scoped to a schema, so the agent can tell roughly what it returns. It does not reconcile the name's 'lineage' framing with the actual metadata-listing behavior, nor distinguish itself from schemas_describe_schema or tables_list_tables.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this composite over the granular siblings (schemas_list_schemas, tables_list_tables, tables_describe_table) or over the horizon lineage tools. The agent must infer that this is a convenience aggregation, and nothing states that both parameters are optional or what defaults apply.

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