describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious behavioral trait that column names and encodings are not guessable, plus what the output contains (including a restricted-column flag). It omits error behavior for unknown tables and any permission requirements, but for a read-only metadata lookup it is adequately transparent.

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, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the imperative guidance. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes what is returned, which satisfies most of the agent's needs for a simple one-parameter lookup. Remaining gaps are minor: the table identifier format and behavior for unknown tables.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies that 'table' identifies the table to inspect. It adds no detail on naming format (schema-qualified vs bare, case sensitivity) or acceptable values, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') on a specific resource ('a table's columns') and enumerates the returned content: SQL type, business meaning, and restriction status. This clearly separates it from list_tables (enumeration) and run_query (execution).

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call this before writing a query against a table. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name the sibling alternatives (list_tables, run_query) or state when this tool is unnecessary, so it falls short of a 5.

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