Tables List Views

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful return-shape detail (quoted_name, quoted_qualified_name with quoting conditions), but because an output schema exists this is partly redundant and it says nothing about filtering or pagination 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no padding. The second sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is compact and delivers a practical quoting tip.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description needs mainly to cover usage and the undocumented pattern parameter. It is adequate but leaves optional filtering semantics unexplained, which matters for a 3-parameter list tool with no required arguments.

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 67%; database and schema_name have describing text while pattern is undocumented. The description adds nothing about what pattern matches or how database/schema_name affect results, so it does not compensate for the gap on the pattern parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('views in a database schema'), which lets an agent distinguish this from the many other list tools. However, it never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling tables_list_tables (views vs tables), so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tables_list_tables or schemas_describe_schema. An agent must infer from context alone that this is the tool for enumerating views rather than tables.

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