describe_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It is a describe operation, inherently read-only, and the text clarifies what information is returned (tables, columns, etc.), adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential latency, output size, or that it makes no changes, but the nature of the tool makes this less critical.

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?

Two concise sentences, the first states the core purpose with examples, the second gives actionable guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded and well-structured.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool provides: a comprehensive schema overview plus join/decoding rules. The explicit link to run_sql completes the context, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than parameters.

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 tool describes the OSCAR database, listing specific components (tables, columns, foreign keys, join and decoding rules). It names run_sql as the sibling tool meant to be used afterward, effectively distinguishing its purpose as a preparatory schema-inspection tool.

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 instructs the agent to read this before writing run_sql, providing a clear usage context and relationship to the sibling tool. This is a direct 'when to use' guideline, fulfilling the dimension.

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