describe_table

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

Although there are no annotations, the description discloses the exact return shape ({table, columns, foreign_keys}) and the scope of information retrieved, leaving no ambiguity that this is a read-only introspection endpoint. It does not cover error behavior for invalid table names or format details of returned values, but it is sufficiently transparent for a metadata lookup.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second, and the return shape and parameter enumeration in the third. Every clause earns its place, so it is both compact and highly informative.

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 single-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, how to call it, valid inputs, and when to use it. No significant contextual gaps remain that would prevent correct invocation or understanding.

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 provides only a string named 'table' with no description or enum, giving an agent no guidance. The description fully compensates by describing what the parameter is ('the table name') and enumerating the four valid values (customers, products, orders, order_items). This is exactly the value a tool description should add beyond the raw schema.

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 has a specific verb ('Describe'), a well-defined resource ('one table'), and enumerates exactly what schema details are returned (columns with name/type/not_null/default/primary_key, plus foreign keys). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are list/analytical tools rather than schema introspection.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use it: 'Use this before building any mental model of how tables relate.' It also limits usage by naming the only valid table values. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it in favor of a sibling, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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