Describe Table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Show' clearly conveys a read-only operation, and enumerating columns/types/constraints sets expectations for the result. Missing details like behavior on an unknown table are minor for this simple introspection 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase ('Show the schema', 'columns, types, constraints', 'for a specific table') contributes to selection and invocation. It is short without being vague.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the result will contain and which table is targeted. It lacks an explicit statement about return format and failure behavior, but the simple scope makes that gap minor.

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%, so the input schema already documents both table and database parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'specific table,' so baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('schema for a specific table'), and enumerates what it returns ('columns, types, constraints'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables, which only enumerate table names, and schema_diff, which compares schemas.

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 phrase 'for a specific table' implies when to invoke it (single-table schema inspection) and implies it is not for listing all tables. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_tables or schema_diff, so the when-to-use guidance is largely left to inference.

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