find-tables-by-name

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema — results come from an in-memory cache and force_refresh bypasses it — but says nothing about permission requirements, how fuzzy matches are ranked, case sensitivity, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 core purpose and the caching behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. The Args block partially restates schema titles, but each entry adds meaning, so there is little pure waste despite the docstring-style indentation.

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 explained, and the caching behavior is covered. However, for a search tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits result ordering, case/matching semantics, and error behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to phrase a query.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are explained, including the non-obvious semantics of force_refresh (bypass the cache and refetch from the API) and limit (maximum results). It stops short of clarifying matching semantics for search_term, such as substring vs. edit-distance behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find tables by name in Unity Catalog, with the distinguishing mechanism (fuzzy matching) named. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling listing tool get-tables-in-catalogs-schemas, but never names that sibling or explicitly draws the search-vs-list boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'find tables by name' plus 'fuzzy matching' suggests this is the right tool when the exact table name is unknown, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get-tables-in-catalogs-schemas or get-tables-details, and no stated exclusions or preconditions.

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