list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the matching semantics: case-insensitive LIKE, '%'/'_' wildcards, and a default of '%'. It says nothing about result ordering, size limits, whether system/owned schemas are included, or whether views are excluded, which are the behaviors an agent would need 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the filter mechanics. Every clause conveys a usable fact.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits result scope (all schemas vs current user, system objects, views) and any indication of what each result entry contains, which matters given how many sibling list_* tools exist.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the LIKE example and the '%' default. The description's only genuinely additive detail is that matching is case-insensitive; the rest repeats the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 tables') and describes the filtering capability, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns at a coarse level. It never names or distinguishes itself from the many similar siblings (list_views, list_objects, list_external_tables, list_materialized_views), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 at all: nothing says to prefer this over list_objects, search_objects, or list_views, and no exclusions (e.g. system schemas) are stated. The only conditional behavior mentioned is the optional schema, which is really a parameter fact rather than usage guidance.

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