describeTable

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It details the returned information (columns, indexes, foreign keys, etc.) and implies a read-only operation. Though it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, the nature of 'describe' suggests no mutation. The transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key outputs. No superfluous words, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fairly completely covers what the tool returns. However, it does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., size constraints, rate limits) or ensure the agent knows the output format. Still, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one parameter 'table' with a description; the tool description adds 'Optionally prefix with schema: 'schema.table'' which provides additional context on how to specify table names. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds meaningful extra guidance beyond the schema field description.

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 explicitly states 'Describe a table: returns columns (name, type, nullability, primary key, identity), indexes, foreign keys, check constraints, and table-level size/row-count statistics.' This clearly identifies the action (describe) and the resource (table), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like query (executing queries) and listTables (listing tables).

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 explicit usage guidelines or comparisons to alternatives are provided. The description implies this tool is for retrieving table schema, but it does not state when to use it versus siblings like listTables or query. A 3 is appropriate because the purpose is clear, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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