search_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-system-schema exclusion and the wildcard behavior of '_' and '%', but omits case sensitivity, matching limits, and result-size behavior for what could be a broad sweep.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then when to use it, then the one non-obvious caveat. No 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?

Three fully documented parameters plus an output schema mean return values need no explanation; scope and wildcard semantics are covered. Only case sensitivity and result limits remain unstated.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by warning that '_' and '%' in the pattern act as wildcards, which the schema does not state. The optional schema restriction is left to the 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (tables and columns) with explicit scope: 'across every non-system schema.' This separates it from list_tables/describe_table by implication, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Use it when you know the field you need but not which table holds it' gives a clear selection context. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g., list_tables) to complete the routing story.

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