Search Schemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that keywords are space-separated, use OR logic, and match against schema name and comment. It does not mention ordering, case sensitivity, or side effects, though 'search' implies a read-only operation.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb, target, and key behavioral detail (OR logic, searched fields) are front-loaded and directly useful to an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks guidance on when to choose search_schemas over list_schemas, and it leaves limit/offset semantics unspecified. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important semantics for the required 'keywords' parameter: space-separated terms with OR logic over name and comment. However, it does not explain 'limit' or 'offset,' which are left to inference from their names and defaults.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('schemas'), and a precise scope ('over schema name and comment'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_schemas, search_tables, and search_columns.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find schemas by keyword. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with list_schemas or search_tables/search_columns, nor does it state when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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