List Table Terms

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals that terms come from 'glossaryTermAsset' relationships and that a column with no term has 'genuinely never been assigned one' — the catalog does not guess from column names. That prevents a caller from over-interpreting an empty result.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first states what it does, the second positions it among siblings and characterizes its value, and the third explains the data-source semantics. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple read-only list with four optional parameters, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the behavioral and data-source nuance an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and all four parameters have their own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema carries that burden.

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: 'List the business terms assigned to a table's columns.' It also differentiates from the sibling list_term_assets by calling itself 'the reverse' and explains the return value: each column's term plus the term's definition.

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?

It states the canonical alternative ('The reverse of list_term_assets') and a concrete use case: 'the fastest way to judge whether a table is governed.' This gives an agent enough routing information without needing to open either tool's schema.

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