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 burden. It discloses how columns are returned ('flat as `column_names` and `column_rows` in ordinal position'), which adds some behavioral context, but it lacks details about side effects (likely none) or potential errors.

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 concise with two clear parts: what the tool describes and how the output is structured. There is no wasted language, though the output details could be more succinct.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and two simple string parameters, the description adequately covers the purpose. It mentions key output elements but does not fully detail how foreign keys or indexes appear, which is acceptable since the output schema presumably covers that.

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% schema description coverage, and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names 'schema' and 'table'. While the names are self-explanatory, the description fails to provide any additional constraints, formats, or examples to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Describe a table: columns, types, nullability, primary key, FKs, indexes.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like list_schemas, list_tables, sample_table, and run_query.

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 using the tool to get table schema details but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sample_table or run_query. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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