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 describes the return structure in detail but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately detailed without being overly verbose; each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in the Returns section echoing inputs, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not fully shown), the description covers return values comprehensively, including column details. However, it lacks information on error scenarios, required permissions, or edge cases. For a describe tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning beyond parameter names by providing examples and sources (e.g., 'catalog_name: Catalog containing the table (e.g., "iceberg_data", "tpch")'). This significantly aids parameter understanding, though format or constraints could be more precise.

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 'Get detailed schema and metadata for a watsonx.data table', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists table names) and other schema-related tools.

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 by referencing other tools as parameter sources (e.g., 'from list_schemas', 'from list_tables', 'from list_engines'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_tables or get_instance_details. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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