describe_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful output content (sample rows) and the verb 'describe' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any limitations. The behavior is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 names the action and resource immediately and enumerates the included components without any filler. Every word contributes value.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool, the description is largely complete. It mentions sample rows beyond the schema basics, and an output schema exists to cover return structure. The only missing piece is explicit usage context relative to query_readonly, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a score of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately omits any parameter details.

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 ('Describe') and a specific resource ('the demo database'), and enumerates the exact content covered (tables, columns, foreign keys, sample rows). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling query_readonly, which implies running queries rather than describing schema.

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 tool's purpose is clear, but there is no explicit statement of when to use describe_schema versus the sibling query_readonly. Usage is implied by the description and the sibling's name, but the description does not explicitly say 'to run queries, use query_readonly instead'.

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