df_get_connection_schema

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by revealing that the schema is a cached snapshot from the last refresh rather than a live query, which affects how the agent should interpret results.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the cached/non-live caveat, and the intended use case. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 read-only schema lookup with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly, and it hints at the return contents (tables and columns). It is slightly incomplete on parameter semantics and does not describe the output shape, but the core use case is well covered.

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 only 40%; project_id and version_id are documented in the schema, but language and use_cache are not described anywhere, and connection_id is only implied by 'connection' in the description. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or explain how caching relates to the use_cache parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('cached schema of a connection'), and the content (tables and columns). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like df_get_connection by emphasizing the schema/cached nature.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('to pick valid table and column names for write operations') and what it is not ('not a live query'). It does not name an alternative sibling, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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