describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It honestly states the tool returns data without indicating any side effects. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get a table profile,' but not explicitly stated. Good, though a note on non-destructiveness would improve it.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key output components, earning its place without redundancy.

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 reasonably complete for its purpose with an output schema covering return values, but it lacks parameter guidance and usage context. Adding explanations for the three optional parameters and mentioning any prerequisites would make it adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters, but it only lists output components. It fails to map parameters like include_semantics to their effect on the profile. The four parameters (table, include_semantics, include_samples, sample_limit) are left undocumented, adding minimal value over the schema.

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 retrieves a table profile including schema, semantic metadata, sample rows, and guidance. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings, which are action-oriented (create, delete, execute) rather than descriptive.

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 when a table profile is needed but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like query_range or explain_query. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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