list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that row counts are returned, which hints at extra cost versus a bare name list. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether views/schemas are included, or whether counts are exact or estimated.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the one useful return 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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and what comes back (row counts). Minor gaps remain around schema scope and object types (views, system tables), but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The empty schema is consistent with the description's unqualified 'the database' scope, though that scope itself is unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list tables) plus the notable payload detail (row counts), which distinguishes it from describe_table's per-table detail. It does not explicitly name siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing tables is naturally a discovery step before describe_table or run_select, but the description never says when to pick this over those siblings or any exclusions. An agent can infer the workflow but receives no explicit routing guidance.

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