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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the cross-table scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details like output format, pagination, or limits, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is informative with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It clearly conveys what the search does, though it could specify what fields are returned (e.g., table name, column type) to be fully 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema ('Search term to match column names or types') directly mirrors the tool's description. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('columns'), and a clear scope ('across all tables'). It is distinct from sibling tools like scalix_db_schema or scalix_db_table, which presumably target specific tables or schema-level details.

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 phrase 'across all tables' clearly signals when to use this tool (when you need to find columns globally by name or type) and implicitly differentiates from table-specific or schema-level tools. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, keeping it slightly below a 5.

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