Recipes Profile Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. 'Composite recipe' hints that this fans out into multiple queries, which is useful but not elaborated — no mention of whether it is more expensive than a single describe call, or what happens on a missing table. Adequate, not rich.

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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though the leading 'Composite recipe:' label spends words on internal taxonomy rather than agent-facing information.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is the distinction from the many profiling-adjacent siblings, which is the main thing an agent needs in this crowded namespace. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, so the schema itself documents all three parameters and the quoting convention. The description adds nothing about how database and schema_name default when null, which is the one genuinely ambiguous part. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb (profile) and resource (table) and enumerates the outputs: metadata, row count, and column inventory. It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from close siblings like tables_describe_table or recipes_inspect_table_with_sample. The term 'Composite recipe' is jargon an agent may not parse.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus tables_describe_table, tables_sample_table, or recipes_inspect_table_with_sample, all of which sit in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no cost or expense guidance. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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