describe-table

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation but does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a simple read, the description is minimally adequate.

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 consists of a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., whether it returns column names, data types, constraints). It is adequate but lacks detail on output structure or error scenarios, which would help an AI agent handle the tool effectively.

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 for the single parameter is 100% (tableName has a description). However, the tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, offering no additional context like formats or constraints.

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 the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'detailed schema (columns, types, etc.) of a specific table', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-tables (which only lists table names) and describe-batch-tables (which handles multiple tables).

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 use when schema details of a single table are needed, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like get-field-descriptions or list-tables. No use-case exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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