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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the table does not exist or what the output structure looks like, though an output schema exists to cover the latter.

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 compact clause with zero filler, and the scope qualifier ('of one table') is placed at the end where it can't be missed. Slight deduction for being a sentence fragment that spends its words listing return fields already covered by the output schema.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return values, yet it does so at the expense of usage context. For a trivial one-parameter introspection tool this is just about adequate, but it omits error behavior (unknown table) and its role in the query workflow.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the 'table' or 'schema.table' format, so the description's only contribution is 'of one table', reinforcing that a single table is accepted rather than a list. That matches baseline 3 for schema-driven 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 noun phrase enumerates exactly what the tool returns for a single table (columns with type/nullability/default/comment, keys, constraints, indexes), which distinguishes it from list_tables and run_query by scope and content. It lacks an explicit verb, but combined with the name the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the schema-inspection step before run_query or explain_query.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot: that analyze=true actually executes the query and that this mode is gated by server configuration. Minor gap: no statement about cost/runtime risk of executing the query or side effects beyond the SELECT restriction.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the risky analyze mode called out afterward. Every clause earns its place.

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 values needn't be detailed, and the description still sketches what the summary contains. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented params array and the absence of any statement about what the explain output looks like beyond node types.

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 coverage is only 33% - sql and params carry no schema descriptions at all. The description compensates partially by constraining sql to a SELECT and explaining analyze=true. But the params array (bind parameters for the query) is never mentioned, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource: shows the PostgreSQL execution plan of a SELECT, and even enumerates what the summary contains (node types, sequential scans, index suggestions). It is distinguishable from run_query by being an explain operation rather than an execution, but it never names the sibling to make that contrast explicit.

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 implied by the purpose (use it to inspect a plan) and there is a useful conditional on analyze=true ('only available if the server enables it'). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over run_query, or on prerequisites such as whether the statement must be a single SELECT.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that row counts are approximate and that views are included, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about default schema scope or result size limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the returned fields are enumerated compactly. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish scope and purpose, which it does. It stops short of noting the default behavior when no schema is supplied, a small gap for a list tool.

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 single `schema` parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting per baseline. The description does not mention the filter at all, notably omitting that omitting it presumably lists all allowed schemas, so it adds nothing over the structured field.

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?

Specific verb 'Lists' with the resource ('tables and views') plus the exact fields returned (kind, approximate row count, size, comment), so an agent knows this is the overview/inventory tool. It does not explicitly name describe_table or run_query as the more detailed alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 implied rather than stated: returning lightweight metadata for all tables suggests a discovery step before describe_table or run_query, but the description never says when to prefer it over those siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a time limit, a hard 200-row ceiling, the allowed clause forms (WITH, VALUES, UNION), and that rejected statements come back with an explanation rather than a bare error. That tells the agent both the guardrails and how failures surface.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the core capability and row cap are front-loaded ahead of the refusal list. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 tool is simple, all parameters are schema-described, an output schema exists, and the description still covers the important constraints (single statement, row cap, refused constructs). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so sql, limit and params are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'at most 200 rows' corroborates the limit maximum but adds no syntax or usage detail the schema lacks.

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 ('Runs one SELECT ... returns at most 200 rows') and pins the accepted statement forms, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not name any sibling, so the boundary with explain_query (for plans rather than results) is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Explicitly enumerates what is refused (writes, DDL, locking clauses, system catalogs, side-effecting functions), which is effectively a when-not-to-use list. It never points at an alternative such as explain_query or describe_table for schema inspection, so routing between siblings is inferred.

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