describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description absorization all burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is a read-style introspection (get definitions, row count, sample rows) and does not suggest any modification of side effects. It leaves the exact number of sample rows unspecified, but that's minor for a describe type action.

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 dense sentences deliver the needed information without fluff. The first sentence says what it returns; the second positions it in the overall workflow. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output content, and workflow context. It doesn't describe how many sample rows are returned or whether row count is approximate, but for a one-parameter introspection tool with an enum parameter, it's sufficiently 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?

There is exactly one required table parameter with an enum; the schema already enumerates valid tables, but the description's coverage is 0%. The description says 'one table' and implies the table name comes from list_tables, adding some process context, but does not itself define the parameter values or formats. The enum carries most semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a distinct resource: column definitions, row count, and sample rows for one table. It clearly distinguishes itself from list_tables and query by naming when each is used, and says exactly what information to expect from the tool.

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?

It provides an explicit workflow: call this after list_tables and before using the query tool. This conveys the intended portion in the schema-discovery flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context and alternat structure make the situation reasonably clear.

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