Describe an Infino table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state that the tool returns column names and types, implying a read-only metadata operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or other behavioral details that could be relevant.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then immediately gives practical usage rationale. Every clause earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the return value (column names and types) and the recommended usage context (before searching). The sibling context makes it clear this is a preliminary step, so no further behavior needs explanation.

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 input schema has only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'table' should come from infino_list_tables. The description adds usage context but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('Return a table's column names and types') and the resource (a table), which is specific and distinct from the sibling search, count, and SQL tools. It also explains the purpose of the tool ('call before searching'), reinforcing its role as an introspection utility.

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 advises using the tool before searching to identify target columns and understand result fields, giving clear contextual guidance. It does not enumerate when not to use it or mention alternatives, but there is no direct sibling that provides the same schema-description function.

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