listSequences

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds the one non-obvious behavioral trait beyond those hints: the schema parameter is optional, and omitting it changes the result scope to 'across all schemas.' No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

A single 17-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the scoping conditional. Every word earns its place — no filler and no repetition of what the schema or annotations already state.

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 2-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description plus an output schema and safety annotations cover everything an agent needs: connection-parameter behavior is in the schema, schema-omission behavior is in the description, and return values are covered by the output schema. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% — the schema parameter has no schema-level documentation. The description compensates by explaining the schema parameter's semantics ('in one schema, or across all schemas when schema is omitted'), telling the agent that omission is valid and changes the scope. The connection parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Discover') with a precise resource ('sequence names and metadata') and states the scoping behavior ('in one schema, or across all schemas when schema is omitted'). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like listSchemas, listTables, and listRoutines by its unique resource type.

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 schema-scoping statement ('across all schemas when schema is omitted') gives useful context on how to invoke the tool for different result sets, and the resource name clarifies its niche relative to list* siblings. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it, leaving tool selection among the 50+ siblings to inference.

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