get_object_details

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the sampling-based inference and the explicit guarantee that "values are never returned", which matters for privacy expectations. It stops short of describing result size or sampling limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the general behavior and immediately narrowing to the MongoDB-specific return contents. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 shape needn't be re-explained, and annotations cover read-only safety. The description covers the MongoDB path well but is silent on relational behavior (tables/views/sequences), leaving a small gap for non-MongoDB use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the MongoDB remapping of schema_name and object_name. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond noting that object_type is ignored for MongoDB (which the schema also 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Show detailed information about a database object") and elaborates the MongoDB payload (collection type, count, indexes, inferred fields/types). This clearly distinguishes it from list_objects or execute_sql without naming siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "detailed information" implies this is the follow-up to a listing call, but the description never states when to use it instead of list_objects, explain_query, or analyze_query_indexes, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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