mdb_describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly discloses the operation is a read-only introspection and hints at the return content ('columns and types'), plus the dynamic-session vs config-label behavior. It does not describe output format, permissions, or any failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, action front-loaded, with the operational caveat second. No filler, though the embedded database="config_label" quoting is slightly awkward.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the column listing looks like, and it only says 'columns and types' without format or breadth detail. It handles the trickiest parameter condition well, but return-value completeness for a 3-param introspection tool is thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description restates the database parameter's conditional requirement but adds nothing about 'table' or 'schema' beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe table columns and types'), which is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like mdb_list_tables or mdb_list_schemas. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops 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 conditional guidance for the database parameter ('Omit database if dynamic session active; otherwise pass database="config_label"'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over mdb_query/mdb_explain, so usage is only implied.

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