list_fre_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the catalog is a fixed set of 36 tables, but says nothing about what the flag-on path changes or how results are shaped beyond the count.

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 no filler; every word (verb, scope, count) carries information the agent can use.

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 needn't be explained, and the tool is simple with one optional flag. What is missing is the workflow context tying this listing to get_fre_table, which matters for a catalog-discovery 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'detail' parameter is already documented in the schema as including curated key columns. The description adds no further meaning about how detail alters the listing, which is acceptable at baseline given full schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (FRE corporate tables) and even names the exact cardinality (36), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name the sibling get_fre_table, which is the natural follow-up call, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_fre_table, and no mention that this is a discovery step preceding a table fetch. The usage pattern is only inferable from the tool names, not stated in the description.

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