Describe Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the payload includes term bindings, attribute mappings, relationships and SQL attributes. It says nothing about behavior when the table or datasource is missing, or how the single-datasource default is resolved.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is a fragment that leads with the object rather than the action, so it is under-specified rather than efficient. A leading verb would have cost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the safety profile comes from annotations. What is missing is invocation context: no indication of when this lookup is the right call versus its many siblings, which is the main risk of misuse here.

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% for both parameters, including the schema-qualification note and the optional-datasource default, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no interpretation of 'table' or 'datasource' beyond that, which is the expected baseline case.

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 text is a noun-phrase inventory of the resource ("A physical table with its Terms, columns ..., relationships and SQL attributes") rather than a verb+object statement of what the tool does. It does tell an agent what content the result contains, which helps distinguish it from get_term or list_relationships, but the agent has to infer 'describe' from the title alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite many plausible siblings (get_source, get_term, search_ontology, list_relationships, get_query_context). Nothing states whether to call this before writing SQL, or how it differs from fetching a source or searching the ontology.

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