get_object_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'show detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what kind of information is returned, whether there are permission requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns structured data about database objects.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, what format it returns, or how this differs from related tools. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding what this tool actually does and when to use it.

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, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid combinations, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Show detailed information about a database object' clearly states the verb ('show') and resource ('database object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_objects' or 'get_database_overview' - it's vague about what 'detailed information' means compared to what those other tools provide.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that also retrieve database information (list_objects, get_database_overview, analyze_* tools), there's no indication of when this specific 'detailed information' tool is appropriate versus when to use other tools for different types of database insights.

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