get_schema_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the key trait ('Read-only') plus the scope constraint ('currently connected database') and a safety precondition about not assuming the target DB. It omits any statement about permissions, result volume, or pagination limits.

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?

Per-objectType filter guidance is front-loaded and every sentence relates to correct invocation. The IMPORTANT block is slightly repetitive ('ASK them first' followed by 'Do NOT assume'), which costs a little tightness.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, parameter behavior, and the critical database-confirmation precondition. The only gap is that it says nothing about return shape, though metadata output is largely predictable.

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%, and the description's filter guidance (table name required for columns, optional LIKE pattern otherwise) essentially restates what the schema already declares for both properties. It adds salience for the conditional requirement but no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — retrieving metadata about tables, columns, or procedures — and scopes it to the currently connected database. This clearly separates it from the execute_sql / execute_service_layer siblings, which run statements rather than describe schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('explore the schema before writing queries') and a hard precondition (confirm the user's target database, ask if unstated). It also spells out per-objectType filter behavior. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the query-writing task, so it does not reach the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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