get_database_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details on its own. It reveals the source (DATABASE_URL) and the fallback to a local sample schema, but leaves ambiguity about what happens if the database is configured but unreachable, and does not describe the output format.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the fallback as a secondary clause. It contains no redundant 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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how the optional parameter affects it. It does neither, leaving the agent with insufficient information for confident invocation.

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 has one optional parameter 'table' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but fails to provide any meaning for the parameter.

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 specifies the action 'Read' and the resource 'PostgreSQL schema from DATABASE_URL', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also states the fallback behavior, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling API contract tools.

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 when to use the tool (when needing a PostgreSQL schema from DATABASE_URL) and mentions fallback behavior when no database is configured. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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