describe_schema

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the concrete contents returned (columns, row counts, FKs, usage notes) and flags an auxiliary conventions section defining revenue, refunds, and date formats. For an argument-free read-only metadata tool there is little further behavior to disclose, though it never states the operation is safe/non-mutating.

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 sentences with no filler; the inventory of returned content is front-loaded and the workflow directive follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the key non-obvious fact: the conventions section defines revenue, refunds, and date semantics. What is missing is any statement about ordering relative to the sibling query tools or freshness of the listed schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every table') and enumerates the payload: columns, row counts, foreign keys, and usage notes. This clearly separates it from the query-executing siblings like run_sql, sales_summary, or refund_rate without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to read the conventions section before writing SQL, which establishes the tool as the prerequisite discovery step. It does not, however, name a specific alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., 'skip this if you already know the schema'), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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