describe_procedure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is transparent. However, it doesn't mention any limitations, error behavior, or permission requirements—acknowledge that these are minor for a simple read operation.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any filler. It is front-loaded and leaves no room for ambiguity.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, only 1 required) and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention that source code is returned as text or provide a sample output, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters (e.g., format, constraints, or how they interact), but that is not strictly necessary given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stored procedure'), and clarifies exactly what is returned (parameter information and source code). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_procedures, describe_table, or get_query_plan.

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 is clear enough to imply when to use it (when you need details of a specific procedure), but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. No sibling tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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