describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior through the word 'view', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, errors, or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the main purpose followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary fluff or redundancy is present.

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 description covers the essential usage context, including the default namespace behavior. Since an output schema exists, it need not explain return values. It is sufficiently complete for a simple describe operation, though it omits potential error conditions or edge cases.

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 adds meaningful details to the parameters, especially schemaName, explaining its interpretation across different database engines and the default behavior when omitted. table_name is only restated as 'table name', which adds minimal value, but overall the parameter documentation goes beyond the bare schema.

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's function: viewing table structure including column names, data types, and nullability. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like list_tables, execute_query, and test_connection.

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 purpose makes the usage context clear (when you need to inspect a table's schema), and the schemaName parameter description provides additional context about default namespace behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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