Describe table index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what 'structure' includes, whether it lists columns, or any system table dependencies), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 seven-word sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. It is perfectly concise with no wasted words or 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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned 'structure' includes or how to interpret it. It also fails to mention optional parameters' roles or any usage context beyond a minimal statement. Given the tool has 4 parameters and siblings that describe other objects, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including optional ones like schema_name and catalog_database. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Describe the structure of a specific index' clearly identifies the action (describe) and the resource (index), with the qualifier 'specific' distinguishing it from listing all indexes or describing tables. It is a concise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 like hana_list_indexes or hana_describe_table. It neither states the typical use case nor mentions any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving the agent without decision context.

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