Schemas Describe Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a hint at the returned content (owner, retention settings), but with an output schema present that duplicates structured data rather than adding behavior such as error handling or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the salient returned fields come first. It is short enough that nothing is wasted, though it stops just short of the routing information that would make the brevity fully efficient.

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 read-only two-parameter describe tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the essentials are present: what is described and what the response broadly contains. Only cross-tool routing and failure behavior are absent, which is a minor 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%, and both parameters already carry the quoting guidance ('Quote names that aren't all uppercase'). The description contributes nothing about database vs schema_name or default behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs the specific verb 'Describe' with the resource 'schema' and even enumerates the payload (properties, owner, retention settings), which separates it from schemas_list_schemas. It does not explicitly name sibling describe tools (databases_describe_database, tables_describe_table), so differentiation comes from the noun alone.

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 by the 'describe' verb: an agent infers it should be called when per-schema detail is needed. There is no statement about when to prefer this over schemas_list_schemas or databases_describe_database, and no note that schema_name must come from a list call first.

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