tableIndexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Reading only' is consistent rather than additive. No deeper behavior such as failure modes, table existence requirements, or result-size limits is disclosed, but for a simple inspection tool the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool returns before giving the use case and safety note. 'Reading only' is the only redundancy, duplicating the annotations without harming readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so: each index's fields in order, uniqueness, and database name. For a one-parameter read-only lookup, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 'name' is fully documented in the schema as 'Table, e.g. EKPO.', so the description does not need to add syntax or formatting details. The phrase 'of a table' agrees with the schema but adds no new meaning.

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 identifies the resource ('secondary indexes of a table') and the returned content: built-on fields in order, uniqueness, and database name. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like tableFields and tableKeys, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 answer to why a SELECT does or does not have an index to use' provides a concrete context for when this tool is relevant: index-use diagnosis. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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