ch_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 reveals the default database behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the table is missing, or any other behavioral details. It is adequate but not rich.

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 and efficiently structured: a single purpose sentence followed by parameter details. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers purpose and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases or read-only status, but for a straightforward describe tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains 'table' as 'Table name' and 'database' as 'Database name' and adds the default behavior ('If omitted, uses the default database'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource (schema of a ClickHouse table) and what it includes (columns, types, comments). This distinguishes it from siblings like ch_list_tables (lists tables) and query_clickhouse (runs queries).

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 purpose clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the schema of a specific table. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no competing tool is suggested by the description. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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