list_materialized_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the read-oriented payload (refresh mode, method, last refresh, staleness), but says nothing about privileges required, row volume, or result limits for a catalog-wide listing when schema is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded; the second sentence mostly echoes what the schema already documents, so it is efficient but slightly redundant rather than fully earning its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, naming the four returned attributes compensates well for the absent return contract, and the parameters are fully documented. Only the missing when-to-use context and any large-result caveat keep it from being complete.

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%: the schema already explains that omitting schema searches all schemas and that namePattern is a LIKE defaulting to '%'. The description only restates 'Optional schema and LIKE name pattern', adding no semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('List materialized views') plus the salient returned attributes (refresh mode, method, last refresh, staleness), which differentiates it in substance from list_views and list_mview_logs. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or contrasting scope with them, so it is clear but not routing-grade.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: the description never says to prefer this over list_views, list_mview_logs, or search_objects, nor any prerequisite. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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