describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or returns specific data. Even a simple statement like 'Returns the schema and properties of a given table' would suffice, but it is absent.

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 extremely concise (3 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, a terse fragment is under-specification, not efficient conciseness. A single sentence is acceptable, but it should convey more context.

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 the tool complexity (3 required params, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not clarify the tool's scope relative to sibling 'show_*' tools, nor does it hint at the output structure despite an available schema. The agent would have to rely on the name alone.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters (catalog, schema_name, table). The description 'Describe a table' adds no further meaning but also does not contradict the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Describe a table' conveys a clear verb+resource combination, but it is generic. Among many sibling tools like 'show_tables', 'show_schemas', and 'show_partitions', it does not distinguish what aspect of a table is described (structure, metadata, statistics). This ambiguity lowers the score.

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. Given the abundance of show tools and 'execute_query', the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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