describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and reveals what fields will be returned, but it does not mention permissions, potential errors, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple metadata lookup but not rich.

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 immediately states the action and the result. It contains no redundant words or filler, earning the highest score.

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 tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return fields (name, type, PK, description). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect, though it could mention that 'PK' means primary key for absolute clarity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default value for 'schema' is already noted). 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('column details for a table'), and it explicitly lists the output fields (name, type, PK, description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_indexes or get_table_relationships, which target different aspects of a table.

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 clearly states the context: use this when you need column-level metadata for a table. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name plus description make the use case obvious enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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