search_tables

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 goes beyond a simple 'search' by revealing that results include deprecated tables (labeled), are ranked by relevance, and include owner and status. This helps the agent understand the return value and potential pitfalls, exceeding the minimum expected for a read-only search tool.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then provides usage context, then describes return behavior, and finally lists arguments with examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters and no annotations, the description covers all essentials: when to call it, what it returns, and how parameters behave. The existence of an output schema means the description need not detail the return format, but it still mentions key output traits. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains both parameters: 'query' is described as 'What you are looking for, e.g. ...' and 'limit' is described as 'Maximum candidates to return (1-25).' This adds meaningful constraints and examples that are absent from the input 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 starts with a clear, specific verb phrase: 'Find warehouse tables by describing what you want in plain English.' It identifies the resource (warehouse tables) and the method (natural language query), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_table or trace_lineage. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this before writing SQL whenever you are not certain which table holds the data.' It explains why table names alone are insufficient, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context is provided, but exclusion/alternative guidance is missing.

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