listTables

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only names, not columns, and supports optional filtering by name or type. This is modest but meaningful added disclosure.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase. Every word contributes to clarifying scope or routing to an alternative.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers purpose, filter options, and the key limitation (no columns). The output schema exists, and the parameter schema covers all inputs, so nothing essential 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 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'filtered by name or type' roughly maps to namePattern and types, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enumerate') and names the resource ('table and view names'), with a clear scope ('in a known schema'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from describeTable by stating it does not return fields/columns, which prevents confusion with a close sibling.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('Does not return fields/columns') and names the specific alternative to use ('use describeTable for one object's structure'). This tells the agent exactly which tool to select for a different need.

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