Find similar names (fuzzy)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of the Jaro-Winkler algorithm and the fuzzy nature of the search, which are valuable details. But it does not mention return format, ordering, case sensitivity, or any side effects, leaving room for ambiguity about result structure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality and immediately follows with a usage hint. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it searches, how (fuzzy, Jaro-Winkler), and when to use it. It does not describe the return value structure, but for a search tool the expected result (matching names) is fairly inferable from the name and description. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter (searchTerm, kinds, limit) has a clear description. The tool description adds context about which object types are searched, complementing the schema's 'kinds' parameter, but no additional parameter syntax or behavior is explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already effectively documents 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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Jaro-Winkler fuzzy search over table/view/column/procedure/function names'. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource scope (object names), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_tables and query_table by highlighting fuzzy matching for when exact spelling is unknown.

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 instruction 'use this when you don't remember the exact spelling of an object' gives explicit context for when to choose this tool over exact-match alternatives. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would have made the guidance stronger.

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