db_gateway__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 usefully discloses that the response includes a masking policy (i.e., data may be redacted), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior on a non-existent table, or result shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with the return content stated first. The trailing 'helps the LLM…' clause is mildly promotional but does add rationale, so nothing is seriously wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema the bar is low, and the description does state what comes back. However, it omits what an agent most needs to act on that information — e.g., that masking policy governs whether query_table results are redacted, and what happens if the table is unknown.

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% and there is a single required 'table' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'a table' and adds no format, qualification, or case-sensitivity guidance, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb + resources: 'Get the column names and gateway masking policy for a table'. An agent can distinguish it from db_gateway__query_table and db_gateway__list_tables by the resource returned. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the distinction is inferable.

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 clause 'helps the LLM understand what data it can access' implies a pre-query inspection step, but the description never states when to call this versus query_table, nor any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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