get_table_column_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the comment information returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 uses a structured format with sections, which helps organization. However, the '[Function Description]' and '[Parameter Content]' labels add unnecessary verbosity. The content itself is reasonably concise, but the formatting could be more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial information about return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. For a database query tool with siblings providing related functionality, more context is needed for effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides parameter information in the '[Parameter Content]' section, explaining what 'table_name' and 'db_name' represent. However, it doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., case sensitivity, quoting requirements) or provide examples. The description adds meaningful semantics but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get comment information for all columns in the specified table.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('comment information for all columns') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'get_table_comment' (which presumably gets table-level rather than column-level comments), so it misses the highest 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_table_schema' and 'get_table_comment' that might provide related information, there's no indication of when column comments specifically are needed or when other tools might be more appropriate. The only implicit context is the parameter descriptions.

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