cbs_table_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and variability. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, authentication needs, response size). With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or significantly enhance transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, providing essential information efficiently.

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 simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on what exactly 'metadata and column definitions' includes (e.g., output format, typical fields). It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by table ID' but does not explain what constitutes a valid table ID (format, examples). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type 'string'.

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 retrieves metadata and column definitions for a specific CBS statistical table by table ID. The verb 'Get' and resource description are specific and distinct from sibling tools like cbs_tables_search (which lists tables) and cbs_observations (which retrieves observations).

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 usage when a table ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use cbs_tables_search first to find the ID). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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