describe_table

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating call, so the bar is lower. The description does add real value by disclosing exactly what the payload contains (columns, types, indexes, foreign keys). It says nothing about failure behavior for a nonexistent table, dialect-specific DDL formatting, or whether the statement is reconstructed vs. stored.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the returned artifact and followed by the enumerated contents. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing to cut.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the surface area is small, and the return-content clause covers the most important unknown. The remaining gap is parameter meaning — particularly how to disambiguate a table across databases — which an agent needs in order to call this 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%: neither `table` nor `database` carries any documentation. The description supplies none either, leaving open whether `table` accepts a qualified name, whether case matters, and what omitting the nullable `database` defaults to. With zero coverage the description was the only place to compensate, and it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return the CREATE TABLE statement') and enumerates the content returned: columns, types, indexes, foreign keys. That is far more informative than a tautology. It stops short of contrasting itself with list_tables or query, though the DDL-returning nature makes it implicitly distinct.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as 'use list_tables to enumerate tables first' or 'use query to inspect rows'. The use case (inspecting a single table's structure) is strongly implied by the description but left to inference.

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