describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the table doesn't exist, or what the return format looks like beyond 'columns and types'. For a schema-inspection tool the behavioral surface is fairly simple, but there's still no error-handling or permission context disclosed.

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 clean sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose clearly. It's appropriately concise, though it could use its brevity budget to add behavioral or parameter detail.

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 single-parameter introspection tool with an output schema present, the description tells the agent essentially what it needs: inspect the columns and types of a table. The output schema presumably documents the return shape. Given the low complexity, the description is near-complete, though adding guidance differentiating from run_query would fully close the loop.

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 for the single parameter. The description does mention 'a given table' linking to table_name, but it doesn't specify constraints like whether it must be an existing table, case-sensitivity, or schema-qualified naming format. With only one simple parameter, the description adds modest value over the schema.

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 'Show the columns and their types for a given table' clearly states the verb (show), resource (columns/types of a table), and the singular parameter. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings (list_tables lists tables, run_query executes queries), though it doesn't explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 usage context (inspecting table schema before querying) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like list_tables for discovering available tables or run_query for custom inspection.

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