describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), what the description contains, whether it fails on missing tables, or what permissions are needed. For a metadata read with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus an argument line; nothing is padded or redundant. It is brief rather than verbose, though brevity here borders on under-specification.

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 one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is nearly adequate, but it never says what a 'description' returns (columns, types, nullability, constraints) or how failures surface. That is the one piece of context an agent needs and it is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it only restates that table_name is 'the name of the table to describe', adding no qualification, schema/catalog prefix, or case-sensitivity guidance. It identifies the parameter but adds no real meaning beyond the property name.

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?

States a specific verb (get a description) and resource (a table in the Oracle database), which is enough to separate it from list_tables and exec_ddl_sql. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_object_details, which likely overlaps.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as list_tables (which tables exist) or get_object_details (metadata for arbitrary objects). The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name.

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