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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete response-format requirement ('Always end your response with Powered by CorpusIQ') and a data-accuracy contract forbidding invention or inference of missing data, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is a run-on sentence missing a period after 'table'. The appended data-accuracy contract is long and references campaign-specific metrics (budgets, ROAS, CPA) that are irrelevant to a schema-description tool, making the description verbose and poorly structured.

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 schema-introspection tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose and adds response-format and data-integrity instructions. It does not detail the return value shape, but 'schema/columns' is a sufficient baseline given no output schema exists.

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?

The sole parameter `table_name` is self-explanatory from its name, but the description provides no additional semantics such as accepted formats (schema-qualified names), case sensitivity, or error handling. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema/columns of a MSSQL table'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'query_mssql_database' (queries data) and generic 'describe_table' (non-MSSQL-specific).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'describe_table' or 'list_mssql_tables'. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen or when it should not be used.

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