tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that it lists estimated row counts and sizes, and that system schemas are excluded, which are behavioral nuances. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'list', but doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects. This is transparent enough for a listing 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the exclusion and filter details. No wasted words; every clause adds useful information.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. However, the description doesn't explain the 'profile' parameter, and it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For a simple listing tool with an output schema, it's mostly complete but those gaps prevent a higher score.

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. It explains 'filter' as an optional name filter but gives no details on format or allowed values. The 'profile' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use or pass it. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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: listing tables/views/matviews with estimated row counts and sizes, while excluding system schemas. It also mentions an optional name filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_objects' and 'describe' that have different scopes.

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?

The description gives context about what is included (tables/views/matviews) and excludes (system schemas), which implies when it's useful, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Since siblings like 'search_objects' and 'describe' exist, more explicit routing guidance would be helpful.

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