validate_columns_exist

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it verifies column existence but does not specify return value, side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. Critical details are missing.

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?

Concise single-sentence description with a warning emoji for emphasis. However, it lacks structure such as parameter descriptions or return value details, but remains compact.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description fails to convey what the tool returns, how errors are reported, or detailed parameter roles. It is incomplete for an agent to use without additional information.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any of the five parameters (e.g., datasource_name, database, table, columns, schema). This is inadequate for proper usage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Verify columns exist' and the resource 'columns'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like run_aggregate_check by explicitly stating it is a prerequisite for aggregate checks.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this before run_aggregate_check and explains the benefit (prevent errors from typos/missing columns). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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