describe_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds that this is a metadata GET against /info/db/<TABLE> and how it fits into a read workflow, but says nothing about what the response contains (field names, types, descriptions) or limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable sequencing instruction. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for what a 'field schema' looks like, and it does not describe the returned shape at all. Combined with the unexplained 'product' parameter, an agent knows when to call it but not exactly what it will get back.

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 carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. 'One /db table' loosely implies the table parameter, but the required 'product' param with its gen/civil enum is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess why a product scope is needed for a schema lookup.

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 and resource: returns the NX server's own field schema for a single /db table, and it even pins the underlying endpoint (GET /info/db/<TABLE>). That distinguishes it from read_table (data) and list_tables (enumeration), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this before read_table to learn what each field means,' naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It does not say when not to call it or whether it is ever needed standalone, but the trigger condition is clear.

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