faucet_describe_table

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description usefully adds the authorization requirement (GET permission on the table's schema). It goes beyond the annotation with an access constraint, though it does not discuss rate limits or result size behavior.

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?

Three tight clauses: what is returned, when to use it, and the permission requirement. The return contents are front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return contents (columns, keys, indexes), and it also covers the permission prerequisite. For a two-parameter read-only tool this is sufficient for an agent 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 both parameters (service, table) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, naming, or lookup detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the work.

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 (Get) and resource (detailed schema for a specific table) and enumerates exactly what is returned: columns, types, nullability, defaults, primary keys, foreign keys, and indexes. This clearly separates it from siblings like faucet_list_tables (enumerates tables) and faucet_query (runs queries).

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Use this to understand table structure before writing queries.' That orients the agent well, but it names no alternative or exclusion condition (e.g., when to prefer faucet_list_tables or faucet_raw_sql), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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