get_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination ('Paginated to prevent token overflow') and describes the return contents (primary/foreign/unique keys and a relationships map). These are genuinely useful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not state read-only explicitly, but 'Get' and the content make that reasonably clear.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, value, and behavioral note. Each sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded. No filler or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description explains the return shape (keys and relationships map) despite the lack of an output schema, and flags pagination. It is slightly vague about the scope of 'all tables' and how the relationships map is structured, but for a fairly simple introspection tool this is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions key types compatible with the keyType enum, but it does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema already documents. No compensation is needed, but also no extra value is contributed.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all keys for all tables'), and specifies the key types covered (primary, foreign, unique). It also implies distinctiveness from siblings by mentioning the relationships map for JOINs, which no sibling name suggests.

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 clear usage context: 'This helps understand table relationships for JOIN operations.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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