describe_schema

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a hint about the payload (tables, views, their columns and purposes) and says nothing about scope, filtering, or size of the returned schema.

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 compact phrase with no waste and the query_sql relationship front-loaded at the end. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description does say what comes back (tables and views with columns and purposes) and how it relates to query_sql. Only the return format and coverage limits remain unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter-level expectations are created.

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 fragment names the resource (tables and views, with columns and purposes) and implicitly the action via the tool name. It differentiates itself from siblings by tying directly to query_sql, though it never states an explicit verb like 'describe' or 'list'.

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?

'for query_sql' implies the workflow (inspect the schema before or while writing SQL), but it never says when to call this versus just running query_sql blind, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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