whodb_platform_source_columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the workspace object permits per-call targeting 'without changing defaults,' clarifying side effects (or lack thereof). It repeats the read-only claim, which earns no credit but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input format, then behavioral note. No wasted phrases, though the read-only repetition and workspace mention partially duplicate structured fields.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. Annotations and 100% schema coverage carry the safety and parameter burden, and the description adds the per-call workspace targeting nuance. Complete enough for correct invocation, though sibling differentiation remains 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the source and ref formats already documented in the schema and only restates the workspace targeting concept; it adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: describe columns for a source object. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from close alternatives like source_fields or source_objects, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for required inputs ('Use a source name or id and an object ref such as table:public.users') but offers no when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. Adequate minimum guidance, not rich routing.

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