get_schema_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that the tool returns column metadata and accepts database.table notation, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, nor does it explain error behavior for nonexistent tables or other limitations.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence delivering the core purpose and the second adding a specific syntax detail. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an existing output schema, so the description need not enumerate return values. It covers the basic purpose and a key syntax detail, but lacks explicit usage guidance to distinguish from sibling tools and does not address error handling or assumptions. This is adequate but minimal for a complete picture.

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 input schema only defines table_name as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that database.table notation is accepted for cross-database lookups, which goes beyond the bare schema parameter. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 that the tool returns column metadata for a table, listing specific attributes (name, type, nullability, key, default). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('column metadata' for a table), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like execute_sql or get_table_sample.

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 description provides a usage tip about database.table notation for cross-database lookups, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of execute_sql or get_table_sample, nor any scenarios that would prefer schema inspection over those siblings.

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