Describe CASDA table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool operates on a single table, but otherwise does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 of 14 words that immediately conveys the action ('describe columns') and the target ('one TAP_SCHEMA table'). No extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (handles return values) and full parameter documentation, the description adequately conveys the core function. It omits context about underlying TAP_SCHEMA views but is still complete for a simple metadata tool.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Unqualified TAP table name such as obscore'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 ('describe') and resource ('columns for one TAP_SCHEMA table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like casda_list_tables (lists table names) and casda_list_schemas (lists schema names).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., casda_tap_query for arbitrary column queries, casda_list_tables for table names). It does not mention prerequisites or typical workflow steps.

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