describe_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description minimally adds behavioral context by listing the returned fields (types, nullability, keys), but does not elaborate on potential performance characteristics, order of results, or system column inclusion.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 introspection tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, but it could be improved by mentioning that the output includes column metadata in a standard format. Still, it meets the needs for this straightforward tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter definitions—it simply repeats that the tool describes a table. No additional format hints, validation rules, or usage examples are provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Describe'), the resource ('columns for a table'), and the specific information returned (types, nullability, keys). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables or show_create_table, which focus on different aspects of database objects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for indexes or foreign keys, one might use list_indexes or list_foreign_keys). The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contrasting scenarios.

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