describe_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read-oriented behavior by saying it lists schema metadata and sample rows, but it does not mention whether sample rows can be large, whether access is restricted, or any other behavioral caveats.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's output scope.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return structure or invocation details. It is slightly incomplete only in that it offers no explicit selection guidance relative to its siblings.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema's property coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resources: tables, columns, foreign keys, and sample rows. This clearly distinguishes describe_schema from the query-oriented siblings ask_database and run_sql.

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 given about when to choose this tool over ask_database or run_sql, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended selection context is only implied by the tool name and the sibling list.

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