describe_table

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: two modes (brief vs full) with their return fields, automatic uppercasing of table name, filter regex capability. All relevant behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third explains return modes and advice. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format for both modes and includes usage advice. Covers all parameters' effects. Could mention return is a list of column objects, but implicit. Completeness is high.

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 100%, so parameters already documented. Description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'brief' and what full mode adds, plus the automatic uppercasing behavior for table. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Return column definitions for a table or view' and distinguishes from sibling 'inspect_table' which includes constraints/FK. Verb and resource are explicit, and sibling differentiation is present.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer inspect_table when you also need constraints or FK relationships' for when not to use, and advises to call this before writing queries if unsure about schema. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with alternative named.

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