Dynamic Tables Describe Dynamic Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the attributes returned (target lag, warehouse, query text), but says nothing about error behavior or the openWorldHint implications (cross-database resolution).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated fields come immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for routing or caveats.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be described, and the annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. For a simple single-object describe tool the description covers the essentials, with only usage routing left implicit.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all three parameters, the schema already explains the quoting/uppercase convention. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb 'describe' with the resource 'dynamic table' and an enumeration of what is returned (definition, target lag, warehouse, query text). It is clearly distinct from dynamic_tables_list_dynamic_tables or refresh/suspend siblings, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting one dynamic table's configuration. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_dynamic_tables, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when the table doesn't exist.

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