describe_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what is returned (columns with types, nullability, PK flags, LLM descriptions, outgoing FKs), leveraging the annotations effectively.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not needed to explain return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what it returns, and how to chain with other tools. It is complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds extra guidance by advising to call `find_relevant_tables` first if the schema is unknown, which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 specifies the tool's exact purpose: describing a table by qualified name, returning detailed schema information. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like `find_relevant_tables` (for semantic description) and `describe_column` (drilling into columns).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (user provides qualified name) and when to use `find_relevant_tables` instead (user describes table semantically). Provides common compositions like chaining to `describe_column` or `suggest_joins`, offering clear guidance.

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