describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the output content but does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any prerequisites/permissions. For a describe operation, this is adequate but not thorough—missing explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value: verb, resource, and specific attributes. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the attributes returned. It is largely complete for a read-oriented metadata tool, though omits behavioral context like pagination or error handling. Still, covers the essential purpose well.

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%, with all four parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that column info is returned. Therefore, baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed column information for a table or view'), listing specific details (columns, types, defaults, nullability, identity, computed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_constraints or get_foreign_keys which target different metadata.

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 implies usage for obtaining column metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_indexes, get_triggers) or when not to use it. The agent must infer context from tool names.

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