list_schemas

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the description's contribution is the access-scoping statement that only schemas visible to the connected user are returned, which is genuine behavioral context not in the annotations. It stops short of noting pagination or result-size behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope and payload qualifiers attached compactly. No redundant or filler wording.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is returned and who can see it. The only real gap is the absence of any cue about when an agent should reach for this versus list_tables.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its default and an example system schema, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about include_system and does not state that system schemas are excluded by default, which is the one behavioral nuance worth surfacing.

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 and resource ("List schemas") plus a meaningful scope qualifier ("that own tables or views visible to the connected user") and a return hint ("with object counts"). It is clearly distinguishable from list_tables/list_columns by resource type, though it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before list_tables or describe_table, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or what the alternative would be. No prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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