describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only metadata operation via 'Returns' and notes the access prerequisite. It does not address error handling, permission details, or edge cases, but for a simple metadata call this is largely adequate.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the key constraint ('accessible table') without filler.

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 that an output schema exists and there is only one simple parameter, the description covers the essential invocation context. A pointer to list_accessible_tables would help, but that is more usage guidance than a completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The single table_name parameter is self-explanatory and the description clarifies that it identifies an accessible table. However, it doesn't document naming conventions, schema qualification, or case sensitivity.

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 a specific action and resource: returning column names, data types, and primary key constraints for a table. It is more specific than just 'describe table,' but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_accessible_tables or sample_rows.

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 phrase 'for an accessible table' implies a prerequisite but gives no when-to-use guidance. It does not mention that list_accessible_tables could provide candidate tables or that safe_query/sample_rows serve different purposes.

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