describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (returning metadata) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose error handling, permissions, or edge cases. This is adequate for a simple describe tool but lacks richer context.

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, focused sentence: 'Return column metadata for a table.' It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, the output schema exists, and the lone parameter is fully documented. The description covers the core purpose clearly. However, it omits potential edge cases or operational nuances, making it slightly above the minimal viable but not fully exhaustive.

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?

The input schema contains 100% coverage for the only parameter 'table', including format details and default schema behavior. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Return column metadata for a table' uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('column metadata') with a target ('table'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables (table names), sample_data (rows), and search_schema (schema search).

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 the obvious use case of inspecting table structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or sample_data. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making it merely implied usage.

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