Inspect schema

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact return JSON structure, presentation rules ('never mention this tool's name...'), fallback formats, and the caveat that rowsEstimate is approximate. This goes well beyond the annotation and helps the agent set correct expectations.

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 longer than average but well-organized: purpose, usage, return format, presentation, and formatting rules each have their own sentence group. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence adds practical guidance, though a couple of formatting details could be tightened without loss.

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?

For a complex tool with nested outputs, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return structure, the rendering modes (card vs Markdown), forbidden actions (raw JSON), and approximation caveats. Even with an output schema present, the description adds enough contextual detail to fully prepare the agent for invocation and response formatting.

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%, meaning all four parameters (db_id, database, include_columns, include_indexes) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: 'Inspect all tables, columns, and indexes of a database at once.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table by emphasizing the whole-schema scope. The purpose is unambiguous and concrete.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this tool when the user wants an overview of a whole schema — e.g. to understand an unfamiliar database or plan queries.' Provides clear context and example scenarios, but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'alternatives' guidance.

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