describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information') and lists what is included, but does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or whether row data is excluded. It is adequate for a simple metadata lookup but lacks explicit reassurances.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. No filler or redundant phrasing, earning the maximum score.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main return content (columns, types, constraints). It is complete enough for a metadata tool, though it could be more explicit about whether primary keys or indexes are included. The description adds value beyond a bare minimum.

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 schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter (table name with optional database.schema qualifier), and the description adds no additional parameter context. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed table structure (columns, types, constraints), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_row_count or get_primary_keys. The verb 'Get' and resource 'table structure' are unambiguous.

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 implies usage (use when you need table structure) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No mention of when to prefer describe_table over get_primary_keys or list_tables, so guidance is only implicit.

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