describe_table

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly states what the tool returns (columns, indexes, foreign keys) and is a read-only operation. It does not discuss permissions or error handling, but for a descriptive tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and outputs. No filler words; every piece of information is necessary and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it lists all major output categories (columns, indexes, foreign keys) and specifies it works for tables or views. No critical information is missing.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Show' and clearly defines the resource: columns (with types, nullability, defaults, primary keys), indexes, and foreign keys for a table or view. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables (which only lists tables) and explain_query (which explains queries).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tables for listing tables, explain_query for query analysis). Usage context is implied from the sibling names but not directly provided.

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