get_table_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which convey the safe read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, errors), but it does not contradict the annotations. This meets the minimum bar with annotations present.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff. It is concise and effectively 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and what it returns at a high level. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the structure of the returned schema (e.g., field names and types), so it does not fully reach 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?

The input schema covers the single 'table' parameter with a clear description ('Table name to inspect'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('structure and field information for a ServiceNow table'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic 'get_record' tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'discover_table' tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_table' or 'query_records'. The description only states what the tool does, without any context on use cases or exclusions.

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