adbc_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent behavior, so the description's main value is adding that no database connectivity is required and that the drivers are licence-gated, native ADBC drivers returning Arrow. That is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss limits or output shape.

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 front-loaded and the operational guidance is clear. Some of the client-language list ('Python, C/C++, C#, Go, Java, R, Rust') is marketing detail that is not needed to invoke the tool.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema handling return values, the description contains everything needed to call the tool correctly in either mode.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents accepted name forms. The description still adds meaningful mode semantics — omitting the parameter lists the family, passing it returns one driver's full metadata — which goes beyond the parameter's field description.

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 ('Get information about the Arpe ADBC drivers') and enumerates the exact driver family covered. It also distinguishes its domain from sibling info tools by tying the drivers to FastBCP's adbc_* connection types.

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 mode guidance: omit `driver` to list the family with versions, pass it for one driver's details. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, which keeps it short of a full 5.

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