base_columnDescription

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. However, the description adds valuable behavioral context about the 'persist' parameter, explaining it materializes the result as a volatile table and returns the table name. This informs the agent about a side effect beyond a simple read.

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 efficient, with the purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a bulleted list of parameters. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter descriptions are repeated from the schema (which is acceptable). Could be slightly more concise by eliminating redundancy, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given that the tool is simple (listing columns with attributes) and there is no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., a table-like result) or whether the output includes all rows or is truncated. For completeness, mention of the output nature would be helpful, but the current clarity is sufficient for typical 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra context by explaining default values ('Defaults to '%' (all databases/all tables)') and the behavior of the 'persist' parameter, which is not fully detailed in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 the tool lists column names, data types, and basic attributes for a Teradata table/view, using specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool base_columnMetadata by indicating that for precise type codes, character sets, etc., that tool should be used instead.

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 states when to use this tool ('for straightforward questions like what columns does this table have?') and when to use an alternative ('for precise Teradata-specific type codes... use base_columnMetadata instead'). This provides clear guidance for selecting the appropriate tool.

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