schema_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 implies a read-only introspection call and discloses the multi-database routing behavior and its default fallback, which is genuinely useful. It does not state permission requirements, what happens for a missing table, or latency/behavioral caveats for cross-database routing.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned artifact list followed by routing behavior. The long parenthetical lists are dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect back.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description's enumeration partially duplicates it. Coverage of the 'db' routing is good, but the undocumented 'schema' parameter and the absence of any annotation-level safety context leave visible gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 explains the 'db' parameter well (connection alias, routes to the default database when omitted), but says nothing about the 'schema' parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere; table_name is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb (describe/retrieve) and resource (a table's schema), and enumerates what is returned: columns with types/nullability/defaults, primary keys, foreign keys, and indexes. An agent can distinguish it from schema_list_tables (which lists tables) without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase '一站式' (one-stop) implicitly signals that this single call replaces several narrower inspection calls, which is weak usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sql_ddl or db_info, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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