search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior by explaining what each detail level returns (names, names+columns, full with FK and indices), which is additional context beyond the schema enum labels. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the search semantics are inherently non-destructive and clearly implied.

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 description is concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then clarify the available detail levels. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity search tool with all optional parameters, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and output granularity. The absence of an output schema is partially addressed by describing what each detail level includes. It could mention the result format or read-only nature, but the information provided is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'detail_level' parameter by expanding on what 'names', 'summary', and 'full' actually return, which the schema enum descriptions do not fully convey. This justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the action 'Busca' (searches) and the resource 'tablas/vistas en el schema de la base de datos' (tables/views in the database schema). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on connection management or query execution by specifying its schema-discovery role.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when exploring the schema for tables/views. It also explains the three detail levels, guiding the agent on output granularity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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