validate_table_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool prevents errors but does not describe what happens upon success or failure (e.g., return value, error handling), nor does it mention any permissions or side effects.

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 brief and front-loads critical information with a warning symbol and clear instructions. It could be slightly more concise but is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description fails to cover essential context like return format, handling of missing tables, or optional schema usage. The tool is simple but the description leaves gaps.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (datasource_name, database, table, schema). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or valid values.

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 'Verify a table exists' and explicitly mentions it must be called before sibling tools like run_row_count_check, run_aggregate_check, run_schema_check, and run_sample_check, distinguishing its role as a prerequisite.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions ('REQUIRED BEFORE CHECKS', always call for both source and target tables before specific checks) and mentions the benefit of preventing wasted time. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance for other tools but the context is clear.

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