listTables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful boundary beyond that — no column/field data is returned — but says nothing about result size, pagination, or behavior on large schemas.

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 capability is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. Scope plus the describeTable routing make it callable, though it is silent on large-schema result limits or how the required connection interacts with a missing schema.

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 the schema already documents connection, schema, types and namePattern including JDBC type lists and the '%'/'_' pattern syntax. The description only restates that name/type filtering exists, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (enumerate) and resource (table and view names) plus the scoping (a known schema) and filter options (name or type). It explicitly names the sibling that covers the complementary job: 'use describeTable for one object's 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?

The description draws an explicit boundary: it does NOT return fields/columns, and routes the agent to describeTable when structure for a single object is needed. It lacks guidance against other list-style siblings such as searchObjects or listSchemas, but the primary alternative is covered.

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