Describe a warehouse view

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: live INFORMATION_SCHEMA with bundled snapshot fallback, a 'source' field indicating which was used, found=false plus closest-name suggestions for unknown views, and domain traps about wh_task and time-related views. This gives the agent valuable runtime expectations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core action, then supplies usage, fallback behavior, error handling, and critical domain traps. There is no filler or repetition of annotation/schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description nonetheless covers source selection, failure behavior, domain-specific data traps, and a pointer to the ID-resolution guide. For a tool operating on a warehouse schema, this gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already documents the single view parameter with examples, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the name must be exact and come from list_views, but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Return the column names and SQL types of ONE warehouse view.' This clearly separates describe_view from siblings list_views (enumerate views) and query (run queries), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does.

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 tells the agent when to call it — 'before writing a query' — and instructs it to use the exact view name from list_views, retrying with suggested names if the view is unknown. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use the tool versus query, but the purpose and prerequisite provide sufficient routing context.

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