search_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that tables or columns are searched by keyword, but does not disclose whether the search is case-insensitive, whether it uses partial matching, whether it returns both tables and columns, or what the default database scope is. No read-only confirmation or side-effect information is given.

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 concise and well-structured. The one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block with no redundant prose or filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Parameter semantics are reasonably complete and the tool is conceptually simple. However, the lack of behavioral detail and absence of usage guidance leave meaningful gaps, especially given the large sibling set with overlapping database-introspection functionality.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a structured Args section defining each parameter: keyword, database, and connection_name. It adds meaningful context about what each parameter is for, optionality, and the default connection name. While not deeply detailed, it covers all parameters.

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 purpose: 'Search for tables or columns matching a keyword.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily understood. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_tables or get_schema, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tables, get_schema, or query. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and first sentence.

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