Profile column data

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description needn't restate safety. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it 'reads actual row values and scans the table', so on a large table 'it can take a while'. That performance warning is the kind of thing an agent needs and annotations cannot convey.

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 with zero filler: the first defines what it returns, the second covers usage and cost. Nothing is buried and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 compensates by naming the exact metrics returned per column, and it flags the cost profile of the operation. For a read-only profiling tool of this complexity, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the comma-separated column format and the top_values default. The description only echoes the columns-scoping idea ('limit it to the columns you need') without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (profiles) and resource (columns of one table or view), then enumerates the exact metrics returned: null ratio, distinct count, min, max, most frequent values. This is unmistakable against siblings like query_table or get_table_schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from the alternative: 'without paging through rows with query_table', and adds the scoping advice 'limit it to the columns you need'. Both when-to-use and a practical constraint are stated.

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