schema_explorer_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses what comes back (columns, keys, DDL, stats), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior on missing tables or invalid database names.

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 tight phrase with zero filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the app qualifier. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly reduces clarity but wastes nothing.

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 tool with no output schema, listing the returned artifacts is enough to call it correctly, and annotations cover safety. However, the absence of any guidance versus describe_table and the total silence on parameter meaning leave real gaps.

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?

Both required parameters (database, table) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all — it never explains whether names are qualified, case-sensitive, or how the database relates to the table. The names are self-evident, which prevents a 1, but no added meaning is provided.

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 the specific resource (one table) and enumerates the returned artifacts (columns, keys, DDL, stats), so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling describe_table, which also appears to describe a single table.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as describe_table or schema_explorer_tables. The only context is the phrase 'for the Schema Explorer app', which names a scope but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool.

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