schema_explorer_tables

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that results include storage type, row counts and size, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior for an unknown/inaccessible database name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned attributes follow. It is efficient, though the trailing 'for the Schema Explorer app' is context an agent can do little with.

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 read-only listing tool this is roughly adequate: the description covers what is returned, which matters since there is no output schema. It falls short on how to identify the database and whether results are bounded or paginated.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself provides no meaning for 'database'. The description only implies that the value selects one database ('of one database'), adding minimal semantics; it does not specify name format, case sensitivity, or whether an ID or display name is expected.

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 concrete resource (tables and views of one database) and enumerates the attributes returned (storage type, rows, size), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like list_tables or schema_explorer_table, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool is appropriate.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (list_tables vs schema_explorer_table vs schema_explorer_databases). The 'Schema Explorer app' phrase hints at a UI context but gives no actionable routing guidance.

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