Stages Describe Stage

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. The description adds that it surfaces location URL, storage integration, and file format properties, but says nothing about permissions needed or whether describe fails on non-existent stages. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but 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, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and the properties it exposes, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated.

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-value detail is not required, and the parameter schema is fully documented. What is missing is the contextual 'when' — how this differs from sibling list/describe tools for stages — which leaves the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 all three parameters (database, schema_name, stage_name) are documented in the schema itself, including the uppercase-quoting convention. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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') plus resource ('stage'), and it enumerates the returned properties (location URL, storage integration, file format), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with stages_list_stages or stages_list_stage_files, so an agent must infer the 'detail vs list' distinction from the verb 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite for the fully-qualified name (database/schema), and no mention of when to call stages_list_stages or stages_list_stage_files instead. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Describe'.

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