inspect_database_objects

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new constraints: the queries are 'fixed' (no arbitrary SQL), results are capped at 20 objects, and scope is limited to the server-configured schema. It does not say what happens above the 20-object cap or what an unrecognized name returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraint (20 objects, fixed queries) arrives immediately.

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?

With one param and no output schema, the description covers intent and scope but not the shape of results or error behavior for missing/overflow names, which an agent would want before relying on it.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry it. It discloses the array is object names and the cap of 20, but leaves qualification/case sensitivity and item-level constraints unspecified.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus concrete resource (Oracle dictionary queries over database objects), with scope qualifiers (up to 20 objects, server-configured schema). An agent can tell this is a metadata-inspection tool rather than a form/Apex tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 statement of when to prefer this over get_source or list_components, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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