Describe table

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. It only lists the type of data returned and does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens for nonexistent tables, whether permissions are needed, or any other behavioral traits. The noun-phrase form also avoids explicitly confirming an action like 'retrieve' or 'return'.

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 entire description is a single concise phrase, 'Column names, types, defaults, and comments for a table,' which directly addresses the tool's purpose without any filler or needless repetition. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.

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 low-complexity tool with only two required, fully schema-described parameters, the description is largely complete: it clearly indicates the returned content despite there being no output schema. It could add contextual completeness by explicitly stating what can go wrong (e.g., nonexistent table) or confirming a read-only behavior, but the core agent-facing information is present.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema as 'Table name' and 'Database name' (100% schema_description_coverage). The description does not materially add meaning beyond 'for a table'; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 clearly indicates the resource (a table) and the kind of information returned: column names, types, defaults, and comments. It goes beyond a tautology and accurately describes the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `show_create_table` or `table_stats`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_create_table, list_tables, or table_stats. The description implies a table inspection use-case but provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or contrasting guidance.

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