List synonyms in a schema

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the data source (SYS.SYNONYMS) and the returned attributes, which provides useful context without contradicting 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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output without any fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite the simple nature of a list tool and good annotations, the incomplete parameter documentation and lack of output schema leave gaps. The description is minimally sufficient but does not fully cover pagination behavior or defaults, making it a moderate score.

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 coverage is only 50%, with limit and offset lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate for this gap by explaining these parameters or their behavior, so it fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: listing synonyms in a schema, identified by source (SYS.SYNONYMS) and output fields (target object schema, name, type). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other object types (e.g., tables, views).

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 provides clear context that this tool is for listing synonyms, implicitly indicating when to use it versus other list tools. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, so it falls 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.