get_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the scope of returned information (schema, fields, metadata) and the intended use cases, which goes beyond the bare read-only annotation. No contradictions found.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every phrase earns its place. It avoids redundancies and is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is a read-only metadata retrieval operation with an output schema present. The description covers purpose and usage, and the structured fields fully cover parameters and return shape. Given the moderate complexity, no critical information 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (table_id, include_hidden_fields, etc.). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'comprehensive table information' and elaborates with 'schema, fields, and metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_data (data rows) and list_tables (table list), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'use this to understand structure, explore fields, or get configuration details', providing clear usage contexts. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating 'when not to use', but the context strongly implies that data retrieval should use a different tool.

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