describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description's verb 'describe' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is basic transparency. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., permission requirements, response shape, or limitations) beyond that.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema to document return values, but the description lacks context about relationships to sibling tools and does not mention the need for connection_name or that schema is optional. It is complete for a trivial description but not for a comprehensive agent-facing tool.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema titles (table, schema, connection_name) are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't explain their roles or any requirements beyond the schema's 'required' fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('structure of a specific table or collection'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like query_database and execute_sql, which run queries. It precisely communicates what the tool does.

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 usage when you need the structure of one specific table, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare with get_schema or list_tables. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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