Describe Table

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 implies a read operation ('describe') but does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or side effects. Behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits are missing.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately understandable.

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 has an output schema and only two simple string parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it falls short of fully informing usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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%, and the description only mentions 'schema.table' format without explaining individual parameters. The phrase 'for a schema.table' provides minimal context (e.g., that schema and table are parts of a fully qualified name), but does not define allowed values or examples.

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 purpose: describing columns for a schema.table. It uses a specific verb 'describe' and identifies the resource as columns, which differentiates it from siblings like dune_discover (which may list tables) and dune_query (which runs queries). However, it lacks detail on what exactly is returned (e.g., column names, types).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No hints on prerequisites, context, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose.

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