Find tables

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return JSON structure, matching behavior on both table and column names, and critical presentation instructions (never mentioning the tool name, rendering modes). This is substantial behavioral context that helps the agent act correctly.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by usage, return format, and presentation rules. It is longer than typical but every section serves a distinct purpose, and the presentation rules are essential for correct agent behavior. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the rich schema (100% coverage), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers search behavior, usage, output structure, and presentation. It does not need to explain return values (output schema exists). Minor gaps like case sensitivity or matching semantics are not critical for basic invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it mainly clarifies that 'term' matches names, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tables by matching table or column names.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_tables (which lists all tables) and describe_table (which describes a specific table). The purpose 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?

The description states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when the user knows roughly what they're looking for... but not the exact table.' This is clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.