list_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is read-only in nature (listing tables), but doesn't disclose whether it returns arrays, pagination behavior, performance implications on large catalogs, or whether the 'approximate row count' uses metadata (fast) or a count query (slow). For a discovery-style tool, the lack of behavioral disclosure about result format and performance is a gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that covers purpose, result content, and filtering capability. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor omission: it doesn't mention the 2 optional parameters by name in the description, but the schema handles that. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unanswered what the returned structure contains besides 'esquema y cantidad aproximada de filas.' The sibling set (list_views, list_triggers, etc.) places this in a clear family context. Overall decent but slightly thin for full completeness.

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 both parameters (schema and namePattern) are documented in the schema with examples ('dbo' and '%cliente%'). The description adds the notion of name-pattern filtering, which aligns with the namePattern param, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it lists database tables with schema and approximate row counts, plus name-pattern filtering. It specifies the verb (lista) and resource (tablas de la base de datos) with result details. It's differentiated from siblings by being table-specific, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for contrast.

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 implies usage for browsing tables/filtering by name pattern, and the sibling list shows alternatives like list_views and list_stored_procedures that target other object types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over get_table_definition or run_select_query, or when NOT to use it. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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