Describe Table (deprecated — use mssql_describe_table_columns)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds deprecation status and alias behavior, which is important contextual information beyond annotations. It does not detail return behavior, but for a deprecated read-only alias, this is adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation warning and immediately naming the replacement tool. No filler or redundant 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 deprecated alias, the description is functionally complete: it tells the agent not to use this tool and directs to the canonical sibling. It omits return-value details, but this is acceptable given the deprecation redirect and the presence of mssql_describe_table_columns.

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%, and the description contains no parameter information. The meaning of tableName, schemaName, and response_format must be inferred solely from parameter names and schema defaults; the description adds no value for parameters.

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?

Description states 'Deprecated alias for mssql_describe_table_columns,' which clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated redirect and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the canonical tool. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs agents to use mssql_describe_table_columns instead, providing a clear alternative and discouraging use of this deprecated tool. This is strong usage guidance.

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