db_gateway__describe_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output includes a gateway masking policy — non-obvious behavioral context that tells the agent some columns may be restricted — but says nothing about read-only safety, behavior for unknown/missing tables, or permission requirements.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action front-loaded ahead of the rationale. Nothing is wasted, though the final clause restates the value proposition rather than adding new information.

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 description adequately conveys what comes back (column names plus masking policy). Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether the table argument needs a schema/qualifier.

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% for the single 'table' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail (naming conventions, qualified vs unqualified names, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (get/describe) and resource (a table's column names and gateway masking policy), which distinguishes it from list_tables and query_table without naming them. The masked-data framing makes the purpose concrete rather than a generic 'describe'.

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 trailing clause 'helps the LLM understand what data it can access' implies the intended workflow (inspect a table before querying it), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of query_table as the alternative, and no stated prerequisites.

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