describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output includes sample rows but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential performance impact on large tables, or error behavior for missing tables.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Retrieve') and lists all output components.

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 the simple input (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the expected output well. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., table not found, insufficient permissions) and does not mention the time complexity or limits.

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% for the single parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning to 'table_name' beyond the schema. The description's list of retrieved items provides context for the overall tool but not for the parameter.

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 retrieves table metadata including columns, data types, primary keys, foreign keys, indexes, and a sample of 5 rows. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_tables' (which lists table names) and 'get_table_stats' (which provides statistics) by specifying the detailed schema information.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting table schema but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., table must exist).

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