Get object DDL definition

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about required privileges and the underlying system view used. This matches the bar for adding auth needs and source information beyond 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?

Two sentences with a clear front-loaded verb 'Retrieve' and resource. It includes only essential information: what it returns, target object types, source, and privilege note. No wasted words.

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 simple retrieval tool with excellent annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, supported object types, and an important prerequisite. It does not detail error handling or return format, but the DDL phrase suggests the output shape. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the object type list already in the schema and adds no additional parameter-level detail. No extra semantics are needed beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves DDL (CREATE statements) for a specific list of object types from SYS.OBJECT_DEFINITION. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling metadata tools like describe_table and describe_view.

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 specifies the applicable object types (TABLE, VIEW, PROCEDURE, FUNCTION, TRIGGER, SEQUENCE) and mentions privilege requirements. It does not explicitly call out alternative tools, but the context makes clear when to use this DDL fetcher versus structural describers.

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