describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'get detailed information', which implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral details like permission requirements, data freshness, or potential errors. However, it does not contradict any annotations as none exist.

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 sentence, which is concise but may be too terse. It front-loads the key action and resource, but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema documenting return values, and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks usage context and does not leverage the existing structured data to reduce redundancy. It is sufficient for a simple read operation but leaves gaps.

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%, and both parameters ('base_id' and 'table_id') have clear descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 verb 'get' and resource 'a specific table', which is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_tables' (lists all tables) and 'get_record' (gets a record). It provides a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_tables' or 'get_record'. It does not mention any prerequisites or context for invocation, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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