list_tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it does not say whether the result includes system tables, how it behaves when schema is null, or whether listing is scoped to the connected database.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately short, though its brevity contributes to the parameter ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. But for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the required database argument and the semantics of the optional schema argument, leaving the agent with real ambiguity about how to scope the call.

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 only loosely references 'schema' without explaining that it is optional/defaults to null or what a null value means (e.g., all schemas). It also never mentions the required 'database' parameter. With two undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List SQL tables and views'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_databases and list_schemas by naming tables and views. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from describe_table or explain how it relates to list_schemas, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether a connection or database must exist first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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