Describe table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that data is read from INFORMATION_SCHEMA / sys catalog views, which implies a read-only, metadata-only operation, and it warns of a table allowlist that may restrict access. But it doesn't state whether it returns empty or errors on a nonexistent table, so transparency is partial.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the detail of what is returned, then the naming convention, then the allowlist caveat. Three compact sentences, no filler, every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, metadata-read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, input format, and the allowlist precondition. What's missing is edge-case behavior (nonexistent table, allowlist rejection), which an agent would want but isn't essential to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents the schema-qualified format. The description reinforces this by explicitly accepting both "Table" and "schema.Table", which adds a small amount of practical clarity beyond the schema. With one parameter, baseline is 4.

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 (Describe) and resource (a table), and enumerates exactly what is returned: columns with sub-attributes, primary key, foreign keys, indexes. An agent can distinguish this from list_tables (enumeration) and sample_rows (data preview) without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the tool — you describe a table to learn its structure before querying. However, the description never explicitly says when to reach for this versus list_tables (to find a table) or verify_connection (to check connectivity). The allowlist note hints at a precondition but is not framed as guidance.

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