Describe one table

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral value by specifying exactly what is returned (full schema details plus up to 3 sample rows) and the purpose ('data format is visible'). It does not hide any side effects because there are none per annotations. Slight deduction for not mentioning any output limitations (e.g., max rows is already stated), but overall it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 compact, uses clear formatting, and every sentence contributes value. The first paragraph describes the action and output specifics; the second paragraph provides workflow guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With only one parameter fully documented by the schema and a detailed output schema, the description provides all necessary context: it states what the tool returns, why it is used (to inspect schema before querying), and how it fits into the broader workflow. Nothing an agent needs to decide when and how to invoke it is missing.

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 already provides 100% parameter description: the only parameter 'table_name' includes a clear description and example ('orders'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating the need to use exact table names from list_tables. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('show the full schema of one table') and specifies the exact details returned: columns with types, NOT NULL and primary-key flags, foreign keys, and up to 3 sample rows. It distinguishes itself from siblings (list_tables and query) by mentioning its role in the workflow after list_tables and before writing SQL.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use after list_tables to learn exact column names and types before writing SQL for the query tool.' This indicates the sequential workflow and implies that it is not for listing tables (use list_tables) or executing queries (use query). The usage context is unambiguous.

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