profile_table

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic ordering, hard limit clamping, truncation reporting, null handling, advisory roles without LLM, and PII limitations. This is thorough for a profiling tool, though it omits explicit read-only guarantee.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of about 5 sentences covering key aspects without fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but each sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists, description does not need to detail return values. It covers constraints (no SQL, no LLM), behavioral traits (null handling, example capping), and limitations (not comprehensive PII detector). Complete enough for typical use.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal nuance: 'conservative table identifier' matches schema, and 'server hard limit always applies' is already in schema. No substantial new meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description states 'Profile one table using deterministic, rule-based heuristics.' This clearly specifies the verb (profile), resource (one table), and method (deterministic, rule-based heuristics), distinguishing it from siblings list_tables and run_test.

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?

Description explains tool mechanics and constraints (e.g., 'SQL and sampling cannot be provided', 'examples are capped') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_tables or run_test. Usage context is implied but not formally contrasted.

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