Get Table Constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only extra behavioral fact the description offers, the default-schema fallback, is duplicated verbatim in the schema, and there is no output schema explanation needed since one exists. A 3 reflects modest added value over annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return contents, with the schema-default caveat last. No filler or redundancy beyond the minor overlap with the schema text.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and 100% schema description coverage on both parameters, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The only omission is disambiguation from sibling metadata tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters ('table' and 'schema') are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of the default schema fallback restates the schema's own wording rather than adding format, casing, or qualification semantics. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all constraints ... for a specific table') and enumerates the constraint types returned (primary keys, foreign keys, unique constraints), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like list_indexes or describe_table, which also expose table metadata, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The implied context (you need constraint metadata for one table) is inferable from the sibling list, but the description itself does not route the agent between get_table_constraints, describe_table, and list_indexes.

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