get_table_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads a table definition, but doesn't disclose whether the schema is cached, whether it's a live query, what happens for invalid table names, or whether it includes all constraints/types. For a read operation with zero annotations, more disclosure would be expected.

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?

One concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and output. No fluff. Could arguably add a bit more context, but for a low-parameter read tool, the brevity is appropriate.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly sufficient. The output (columns and relationships) is stated. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't disclose potential error behavior (e.g., invalid table names) which could be relevant for agents. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 coverage is 100% — the single parameter table_name has a description in the schema listing valid example values. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail beyond 'columns and relationships' for the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the heavy lifting for the one parameter.

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 'Get database table definition with columns and relationships' uses a specific verb (Get) with a resource (database table) and lists what's returned (columns and relationships). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_field (single field vs table) and get_api_endpoint. Could be slightly more explicit about the name-based lookup but purpose is clear.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs get_field or other siblings. However, the context signal that the schema includes example table names provides implicit guidance for which resources this applies to. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendation is given, so it's adequate but not strong.

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