listSchemas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail: it lists schemas 'visible to the current user,' which is helpful. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or potential system schema inclusion (though that is covered in the parameter). Given the annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is stated first, and the follow-up action is provided succinctly. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately short for a simple discovery tool.

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 tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers when to use it, what it returns, and the next step. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or permissions, but the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not stating what happens if the schema is already known, but that is implicit in the phrase 'when the target schema is unknown.' Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including guidance to call listConnections for valid names and the default for includeSystem. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level information beyond the purpose. Since the schema already provides the needed semantics, the baseline of 3 applies without additional value from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('schema names'), and clearly scopes the use case: 'when the target schema is unknown.' It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by mentioning listTables for the next step, making it unambiguous which tool to use for schema discovery versus object enumeration.

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 a clear condition for use ('when the target schema is unknown') and suggests a follow-up action ('Use listTables next'). It also indirectly references listConnections in the parameter description for valid connection names. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like searchObjects, though the context is fairly clear.

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