Describe Baatjie Group Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context, including the return structure, the effect of omitting 'project', and the explicit list of tables per project. However, the description says 'with row counts' but the shown return structure omits row counts, creating a minor inconsistency that prevents a perfect score.

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 long but well-structured, with a concise opening sentence, clear usage guidance, an Args section, a Returns section, and a catalog of tables. Every section contributes directly to helping the agent use the tool correctly. The table lists are informative yet compact, and the format makes the information easily scannable.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by providing a detailed JSON structure. It also explains both projects and lists all expected tables, covering the tool's scope well. The only gap is the row-count discrepancy and the lack of any caveat about count accuracy, which leaves a small hole in an otherwise complete description.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with enums, defaults, and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting 'project' describes both systems and by explaining the semantic difference between 'tanos' and 'sigsche'. This goes slightly beyond the schema, so a score above baseline is warranted.

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 tool's function: 'List every table reachable through this server, with row counts and column names.' It also explicitly frames the tool as an orientation aid ('Call this first when you are unsure which table or column to use'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that query, insert, update, or delete data. The verb+resource ('List tables') is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first when you are unsure which table or column to use. It is the cheapest way to orient before querying.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies that it should be used before other data-access tools. Although it doesn't name alternatives, the context makes the intended usage clear.

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