ise_dc_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates it's a read-only inspection operation ('Get the column details...'), which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't state what happens if the view doesn't exist, whether there are access requirements on the deployment, or the exact return format beyond listing the fields.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. It efficiently names what is returned and the target resource. Slightly short given it could mention the deployment parameter, but the schema handles that. No wasted words.

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 is relatively simple (2 params, one required, no output schema, no nested objects). The description plus a fully-covering schema adequately covers the purpose. The schema references sibling tools for enumeration (ise_dc_list_views, ise_list_deployments), adding useful context. For a metadata inspection tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could note the relationship to querying views afterward.

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 are already documented in the schema. The view parameter has a helpful note about using ise_dc_list_views, and deployment has detailed guidance on name/slug/number formats. The description itself adds minimal param detail but the schema fully documents both. 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 clearly states the verb (get), the resource (Data Connect view), and the specific output (column details: name, type, description, and time column). This distinguishes it from siblings like ise_dc_list_views (which lists views), ise_dc_view, and ise_dc_query, giving it a distinct and specific purpose.

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 implies an exploratory/inspection use case (examining schema before querying), and the input schema references sibling tools (ise_dc_list_views for view names, ise_list_deployments for deployment). While this context is present in schema descriptions rather than the tool description, it does guide when to use this tool. No explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives are named in the description itself.

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