Describe a Database Table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states execution mechanics ('Reads SQLite directly'), that no external dependency exists ('no LLM call, no API key'), and the return format ('Returns JSON'). It also explains a non-obvious behavior — returning real data coverage ranges for date columns so empty results can be distinguished from out-of-range questions. The 'describe' verb implies read-only; the description could state non-mutating explicitly but the disclosed details exceed the baseline for an annotation-less tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: deliverable list, when-to-use, and execution/return format. The content list is front-loaded ahead of the usage guidance. It is information-dense rather than wasteful, though the long enumerative first sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining return content — it enumerates all major elements including the non-obvious date-range feature. One fully-documented parameter, usage routing against siblings, execution behavior, and return format are all specified. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single table_name parameter, which the schema already documents as 'Exact table name, as returned by list_tables (e.g. 'orders', 'order_items').' With full schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond hinting that the table must exist (it describes 'one table'). The schema does the heavy lifting, so 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Returns everything about one table') and enumerates the exact contents delivered: columns with type/nullability/PK/plain-language, foreign keys, CREATE TABLE, caveats, and date range coverage. It clearly differentiates from siblings — it describes schema rather than querying data (query_database, execute_sql) or listing tables (list_tables).

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 gives explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use it before writing SQL against a table you have not queried yet.' This frames it as a prerequisite step and implies the alternative is the SQL/query tools, though it does not name them explicitly or state when-not-to-use. Clear context, slightly implicit on exclusions.

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