List tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is in the operational details: results are unpaginated and table data is not read. 'Visible tables' also signals that access control can limit the result set, which no annotation conveys.

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, each carrying distinct information: purpose and workflow position first, then the result-scope and no-data-read caveats. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: scope (one schema), result set size (unpaginated), visibility filtering, and the fact that no table data is returned. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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 single schemaName parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the default-schema fallback when omitted. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Discover visible tables in one schema'), which separates it from list_views and list_indexes by the object type being listed. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or with get_table_structure.

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?

'before querying' implies a workflow position, so an agent can infer this is a discovery step that precedes stream_query or execute_query. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling named as an alternative, leaving selection to inference.

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