Search Tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses useful traits: OR logic for space-separated terms, match fields, schema-scoping behavior, and the breadth/speed tradeoff. It doesn't discuss pagination or other edge behaviors, but an output schema exists and the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core behavior and then explain the optional scoping parameter. There is no filler, repeated schema content, or extraneous detail.

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 four-parameter search with an output schema, the description covers the search semantics, keyword logic, and scoping options well. It lacks sibling-alternative routing and pagination phrasing, but these are minor given the output schema and self-explanatory limit/offset parameters.

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 add meaning. It does define keywords and schema_name well, but limit and offset receive no explanation beyond their names, which is only partially sufficient for a tool with no parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair—'Search tables'—and specifies exactly what is matched: table name and comment using space-separated OR keywords. This makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_columns or search_schemas without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on the schema_name parameter: pass it to scope and speed up the search, omit it to cover all user schemas. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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