base_columnDescription

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that bind parameters can be used and that fully rendered SQL is returned in metadata, which adds some transparency about side effects. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The mention of bind parameters and SQL rendering is additional but not overly verbose. It could be more structured, but overall each sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'detailed column information' includes (e.g., data types, nullability, constraints) nor the format of the response. An agent would have to infer behavior, leading to potential misuse.

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 description provides minimal parameter information: 'database_name' is described as 'Database name' and 'obj_name' as 'table or view name'. This barely adds meaning beyond the schema property names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide details about valid values, constraints, or defaults.

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 clearly states the verb 'shows' and the resource 'detailed column information about a database table'. It also adds context about bind parameters and SQL rendering, which is specific but somewhat broadens the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like base_tableDDL or base_tablePreview by focusing on columns specifically.

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 such as base_tableDDL or qlty_columnSummary. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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