describe_table

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

The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or data modification potential. Although it seems to be a read-only operation, this is not confirmed, and there are no annotations to fill the gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

The description is missing critical context: it does not explain the 'car' parameter, nor does it mention the output schema or any expected return format. An agent may not know how to correctly invoke the tool or interpret results.

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 description indirectly suggests that the 'table' parameter is the table name, but it does not explicitly explain it. The 'car' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving ambiguity. Schema coverage is low, and the description does not clarify parameter purposes.

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 that the tool provides columns, types, and nullability for a single table in the public schema. The verb is implied by the name 'describe_table', and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like run_query or describe_topic.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. The mention of the 'public' schema hints at scope, but it does not reference any sibling tools or provide criteria for selection.

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