describe_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — masked columns are surfaced in the result — which is output-shaping context not present in annotations.

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?

Two short clauses, zero filler, with the resource stated first and the qualifier about masked columns appended. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description must carry more — and it at least signals the return subject (columns) and one notable result characteristic (masked-flagging). A brief note on other returned column attributes would close the remaining gap, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present for a one-parameter, single-purpose lookup.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone gives only a bare string named "name". The description compensates partially by specifying the expected format as schema.name, but leaves unresolved whether it accepts a bare table name or how quoting/case are handled.

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 fragment "Columns of one table or view (schema.name)" names the resource (column metadata) and the target granularity (single table/view), which distinguishes it from list_tables and query in practice. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never explicitly says it returns/describes column 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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of list_tables or query, and no preconditions or exclusions. The reader must infer that this is the follow-up to list_tables once a table name is known.

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