MySQL LIKE Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the use of LIKE wildcards. It does not mention case sensitivity, performance implications, or any other behavioral traits that the agent should know.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is properly front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 11 parameters, many aliases, and no output schema details, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to form a valid query, which parameters are required (none are marked required), or any constraints. For a search tool, more context about usage patterns is needed.

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%, but the description does not clarify the relationship between the many alias parameters (col/column, sql/query/pattern, name/table/tableName, where/filter). The agent is left to guess which parameter to use, and there is no explanation of required vs optional or how to combine them.

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 clearly states the action ('Find rows') and the method ('LIKE pattern matching with % and _ wildcards'), distinguishing it from siblings like regexp_match or general read queries.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., regexp_match, full-text search) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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