describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention permission requirements, or describe the output format. It also omits any side effects or limitations.

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, focused sentence that avoids unnecessary details and clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about parameters, usage, and return values. While it mentions the content of the structure (columns, constraints, size statistics), it does not cover when to use this tool versus siblings or how the optional database_name affects behavior.

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 lists three parameters (table, schema, database_name) with no descriptions within the schema. The tool description does not mention any of these parameters, providing no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. This is especially problematic since database_name is optional but never explained.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'table structure' with explicit details on columns, constraints, and size statistics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indexes or query, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving table metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as list_indexes or extended_stats. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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