Describir tabla

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output components (columns, types, nullability) but gives no information about execution behavior, such as whether the table must exist, error handling, or side effects (though likely read-only).

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 short fragment, not a complete sentence. While there is no wasted text, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful; it lacks structured phrasing and any details.

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, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is incompletely specified. The description fails to explain parameters, return format, or any contextual information needed to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. It fails to clarify what 'table' and 'schema' mean or how they are used, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Columnas, tipos y nullability' clearly indicates the tool returns column names, data types, and nullability information for a table. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_tables (table listing) or schema_summary (summary), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'describe' or 'get'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or schema_summary. The description provides no context about intended use cases or exclusions.

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