describe_table

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

The description mentions 'cached table,' which hints at a read-from-cache behavior, but it does not explain what happens if the table is not cached, whether any refresh occurs, or any error conditions. With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden and only partially meets it.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with three required parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in all situations.

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 elaborate on any of the three required parameters (connection_id, schema, table). It adds no meaning beyond the bare property names and constraints already present in the input schema.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('columns, keys and comments') and scope ('one cached table'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_tables and search_catalog by focusing on table schema metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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