Describe table structure

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 tool's safety profile is well covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what 'structure' includes (columns, data types, constraints) or whether it requires schema_name for ambiguous names, so it doesn't go beyond 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, compact sentence that conveys the core function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 straightforward metadata query tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves open questions about return format and edge cases (e.g., table not found, schema ambiguity). Given the rich sibling set and no output schema, more detail about what 'structure' means and when schema_name is required would improve completeness.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the purpose of catalog_database and its override behavior. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, so with 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the action (describe) and resource (table structure of a specific table), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like hana_explain_table or hana_get_table_stats, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as hana_explain_table or hana_list_tables. It simply states the function with no context, preferred use cases, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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