List table constraints

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds the source catalog views and the constraint types returned, but does not elaborate on behavior such as ordering, pagination, or error handling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. It includes useful implementation detail in parentheses without any redundant or filler content.

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 metadata list tool with well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what types of constraints are returned and the source system views, though it does not describe the exact output columns, which is a minor gap given no output 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (table_name, schema_name, catalog_database), including default behavior. The tool description does not add further explanation of parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('primary key, unique, check, and foreign key constraints for a table'). It also identifies the underlying system views, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like hana_list_foreign_keys.

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: call this when you need constraint information for a table. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., hana_list_foreign_keys) or any exclusions, so usage guidance remains only implicit.

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