get_object_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'Show' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, pagination, or output scope), so it provides no value beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices informative content, making it slightly less effective than a similarly concise description that adds scope or alternatives.

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 output schema and the fully described input schema, the description is sufficient to understand the basic operation, but it lacks context for when to choose this tool over siblings. An agent would need to infer from the tool name and schema that this returns details for a specific object, making the description minimally adequate but not rich.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description itself adds no meaning about parameters beyond stating the generic object focus, so it doesn't improve on the schema. Baseline 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Show detailed information about a database object.' It distinguishes itself from list_objects implicitly by focusing on details of a single object, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier definitions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_objects explain_query or analyze_* tools. The only situational note ('call list_databases first...') lives in the schema's database parameter description, not in the tool description, so no direct usage guidance is offered.

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