search_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (owner, object_name, object_type, table_comment) and that search is by name or comment containing the keyword. However, it does not mention side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or behavior on no results. The transparency is minimal but adequate for a simple search tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, second lists the return columns. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations, output schema, or detailed parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not address error handling, default limit behavior, or how to refine searches. With multiple sibling tools, more context (e.g., when to use this vs. search_columns) would be valuable. The minimal coverage leaves gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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 adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The 'keyword' parameter is not explained (case sensitivity, pattern matching), and 'limit' is not described (purpose, default behavior). Without any additional info, the agent cannot infer proper usage of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find tables/views in Oracle Fusion whose name or comment contains the keyword.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('tables/views'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_objects and search_columns by focusing on tables/views and keyword matching.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_objects, search_columns). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for effective use. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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