search_schema

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching and the scope of search (non-system schemas by default). However, it does not mention result ordering, pagination, or limitations like maximum term length or performance impact.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action and case-insensitivity, the second lists match targets and optional restriction. Every part earns its place, with no 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the search functionality well. It could optionally mention that results include the object type or location, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, the description adds value by explaining what the term searches across (table names, column names, etc.), which is not in the schema. This enriches the meaning beyond the parameter descriptions alone.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'schema', and specifies what is matched (table names, column names, comments, constraints, indexes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table by focusing on a broad search across schema metadata.

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 implies usage (searching for a term across schema objects) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context-aware recommendations are provided.

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