Describe a table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-mutation, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond it by specifying the exact result shape and fields. It does not go into error behavior or edge cases, but given the annotation coverage, the added precision about return contents earns a solid score.

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 two sentences plus a compact inline return-shape definition. It front-loads the core purpose, adds a usage cue, and then gives the exact response structure without any filler.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only introspection tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and the annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the inline return format compensates for that.

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 100%: both 'table' and 'schema' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show the structure of one table', and enumerates exactly what is returned (column names, data types, nullability, defaults, primary-key membership). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query/execute (run statements) and list_tables/list_schemas (enumerate catalog objects).

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Call this before writing non-trivial queries against a table.' This is clear contextual advice, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. It stops short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives structure that would earn a 5.

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