Describe MySQL table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description reinforces this with 'read-only in every environment', which adds the environment-wide scope. Since no output schema exists, the enumeration of returned content (types, nullability, defaults, comments, ordered index columns) is genuinely additive behavioral context.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the return payload and safety profile following in priority order. 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?

For a simple, read-only introspection tool with full schema coverage, the description covers scope, return contents, and safety. With no output schema it adequately compensates by naming the returned fields; only the absence of an explicit usage condition against sibling tools keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters, including the schema default and the response_format enum, are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces 'one exact table' exactness and adds no syntax, naming, or format guidance beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect columns and indexes for one exact MySQL table or view') and scopes it to a single exact table, which cleanly separates it from mysql_list_tables (enumeration) and mysql_query (data retrieval). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'one exact MySQL table or view' implies you must already know the table name and that this is a pre-query schema-inspection step, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer mysql_query or mysql_list_tables, and no stated prerequisites.

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