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 discloses the return type (list of columns with properties) which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires schema access permissions, or how tables without descriptions are handled. Non-destructive nature is implied but 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?

Well-structured with a docstring format: clear purpose statement, usage context, and parameter documentation. Slightly verbose with the param and return annotations, but each sentence adds value. Compactly conveys the essential information.

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 single-parameter introspection tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what's returned (columns, types, primary key) and when to use it. Could benefit from noting what happens with invalid table names or a note that it's a metadata-only operation, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples of valid table names ('PROJECT', 'CA_DETAIL', 'CA_BILL_PLAN'), giving concrete guidance. With only 1 parameter at low coverage, the examples help but don't fully replace schema documentation of the expected format or valid values.

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?

Describes exactly what it does: retrieves the structure of a table including all columns, types, and primary key membership. Clear verb+resource+details. Distinguishes from siblings like query_peoplesoft_db (executes queries) and list_tables (lists tables, not their structure).

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?

States when to use: 'before writing queries against it' to understand available fields. Provides clear context for use, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when NOT to use it. The guidance is actionable even if not exhaustive.

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