mysql_describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content (columns plus foreign-key relationships), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing tables, required database context, or read-only nature.

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 zero filler; every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the two things returned.

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-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what identifier is accepted. Minor gaps remain around qualification of the table name and error handling.

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?

The single parameter 'table' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no help. The description partially compensates by indicating the parameter accepts a table or view name, which is genuine added semantics, but it omits whether the name must be schema/database qualified.

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 states a specific verb (describe) and resource (columns and foreign-key relationships for one table or view), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like mysql_list_indexes or mysql_list_tables. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no naming of alternatives such as mysql_query or mysql_list_indexes. The purpose hints at schema-introspection usage, but no explicit guidance is offered.

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