describe_table

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

The description discloses the core behavior (what metadata it returns) but goes little beyond that. No annotations are provided, and it does not mention error handling, schema-qualified name resolution, or whether it accesses system catalogs. Adequate but minimal for a simple read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a usage directive. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool returns (columns, types, nullability, comments) and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already describes the 'table' param fully with an example. The description adds only that it applies to 'table or view', which is a minor clarification. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add significant semantic value.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('columns, types, nullability and column comments for one table or view'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables and run_query, which serve different functions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before writing a query against a relation you have not queried before.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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