describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool returns (metadata, variables, qualifiers, size) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, given the lack of parameter information, it may be too terse. It earns its place but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

While an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values, the description fails to address the three input parameters. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required) and the description leaves the agent with no guidance on how to specify which table to describe, making it incomplete.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (table, version, identifier). The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, forcing the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. This is a critical gap.

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 function: 'Describe one HEPData table's metadata, variables, qualifiers, and size.' It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and identifies the resource ('one HEPData table'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_tables' or 'get_table'.

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 when to use (to inspect table metadata) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_table'. No exclusions or usage context are given, relying on the verb 'describe' to imply a read-only operation.

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