describe_table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, and the description adds context by specifying that it returns both column info and the CREATE TABLE statement. This clarifies what the agent will receive beyond the annotation's safety indicator.

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 two sentences: the first leads with the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable extra detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two self-evident parameters, the description fully explains the return behavior (columns, types, defaults, and CREATE TABLE). No output schema exists, but the description covers what is needed.

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%, with both 'database' and 'table' parameters described directly in the schema. The description itself does not add further semantic detail about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('column names, types, and default expressions for a table'). It also adds the CREATE TABLE statement detail, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists identifiers) and query/execute (which run SQL).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need column-level schema details or full DDL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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