describe_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature and the returned metadata fields clear, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown tables, permission requirements, or case-sensitivity.

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 core capability is front-loaded in one sentence and the Args block is tight with zero filler. The Args block mildly duplicates the schema's own parameter names, but it is the only place the schema's meaning is conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here. For a two-parameter metadata tool with no annotations, however, the description omits the schema-default semantics and failure behavior that an agent would want before invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies table_name as the table's name and schema as an optional schema/owner qualifier. The bare 'default: ""' meaning (fall back to the session's current schema) is still left unstated, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (full column metadata for a table) and enumerates exactly what is returned: data types, lengths, nullability, PK status. That enumeration implicitly separates it from list_tables, but no sibling is named explicitly and the boundary with get_schema_relationships is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call to make before writing a query against an unfamiliar table. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer list_tables or get_schema_relationships, and no statement of prerequisites such as the table needing to exist or the connection being set.

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