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. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List the columns and types'), which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it mention behavior on errors or missing tables. For a simple describe tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys purpose directly and efficiently.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters (one required), and the description adequately captures its core behavior. Without an output schema, the description could have detailed the return format, but stating 'columns and types' gives a reasonable hint. It is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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%, with both 'database' and 'tableName' fully described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List the columns and types for a given table' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from siblings like list_tables (which lists table names) and query (which runs queries). It fully conveys the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage context ('for a given table') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention that list_tables should be called first to obtain a table name. This is an implied, not explicit, usage guideline.

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