list_available_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a pre-import operation ('before importing any of them'), implying no side effects. It doesn't detail return format or error behavior, but the output schema exists and the read-only nature is clear from 'List'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and usage context sufficiently. It lacks mentions of prerequisites like source existence, but the overall import workflow context is clear from 'Import Source table picker'.

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%, and the description does not mention source_id or source_schema by name or explain their meaning. 'source' is referenced generically, but source_schema is entirely omitted, leaving the agent guessing about that parameter's role.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tables a source exposes') and clarifies the temporal scope ('before importing any of them'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sources (which lists sources) and discover_tables by positioning as the 'Import Source table picker'.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'use it to choose what to ingest', and calls it the 'Import Source table picker'. It gives clear context for the import workflow, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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