Describe Table

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the INFORMATION_SCHEMA source and the exact returned fields. It does not contradict any annotation (returning definitions aligns with readOnlyHint=true). It could note behavior on a nonexistent table, but the output schema likely covers that, so a 4 is fair.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, usage trigger, and routing to an alternative. The core definition is front-loaded ahead of the guidance, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decision points: what it returns, when to use it, and which sibling handles the adjacent case. Could mention error behavior for missing tables, but the output schema and openWorldHint annotation cover the remaining surface for a simple describe-table 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%, so all three parameters (table, profile, magentoRoot) are already fully documented with examples and env-var fallbacks. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 situation when 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 states a specific verb (returns), a precise resource (column definitions with name, type, nullable, keys, default), and names the data source (INFORMATION_SCHEMA). The output field list distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_tables (which returns table names) and get_table_indexes (which returns indexes rather than column definitions), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use signal ('Use before writing JOINs') and names the precise alternative with its selection condition ('Use list_tables if you don't know the exact table name'). This routes the agent correctly across two closely related schema tools with no inference required.

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