sas_columns

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only the returned attribute set and says nothing about error behavior for a missing table, result size, or ordering; with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short, front-loaded fragment with no filler sentences. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style removes the verb and some clarity an agent might want.

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 two-parameter read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the field list partly substitutes for a return description. However, the meaning of library/table and the relationship to sibling column-listing tools remain unexplained, leaving the definition minimally viable.

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 0%, so both required parameters (library, table) are undocumented anywhere. The description alludes to 'one SAS table' but never explains what library means (SAS libref vs path) or the table naming/qualification rules, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

Names a specific resource ('columns of one SAS table') and enumerates the returned attributes (name, type, length, format, label), so the agent knows this returns column-level metadata. It is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like cas_columns or sas_lookup_columns, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus sas_tables, sas_lookup_columns, cas_columns, or describe_table, nor any precondition (e.g., library/table must exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and field list.

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