Describe a table

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns column names and data types, and it works on tables or views. No destructive side effects are implied. However, it omits details like permission requirements or scope limits, which is acceptable for a simple read-only schema tool.

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 two sentences long with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: first states functionality, second gives usage guidance. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear sibling context, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, and what to expect. No further details are needed.

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 the parameter 'table' is already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the example 'dms_customer' is already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return the column names and data types for a given table or view', which identifies the specific verb (return) and resource (schema of a table/view). It uses 'describe_table' and provides a use case distinct from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists table names) and query.

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 advises 'Use this to learn the schema before writing a query', giving a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is well-directed.

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