describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or what happens if the table does not exist.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure such as a list of parameters or usage hints. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters with zero descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot infer return values, parameter interactions, or edge cases, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for any parameters. The tool description adds no meaning to 'connection_id', 'table_name', 'schema', or 'database', leaving the agent without guidance on their roles or formats.

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 it describes columns, keys, and indexes for a table, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables) and get_table_sample (which returns sample data).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools like explain_query or run_select would be more appropriate.

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