get_table_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear and enumerates what information is returned. It does not mention error behavior, permissions, cost of row-count computation, or whether information is current, so behavioral transparency is only partial.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose before the Args block. The Args repetition is compact though it partly duplicates schema metadata, preventing a 5.

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 read tool with an output schema, the basics are present: required table, optional database, default connection. However, there is no usage context, no sibling differentiation, and no caveats, so an agent selecting among 13 siblings is under-supported.

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 0%, but the Args section gives each parameter a one-line meaning, so the description compensates minimally. The comments are largely tautological (table → 'Table name') and add little beyond the schema titles/defaults, but they do clarify that database is optional and connection_name has a default.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a table') and enumerates concrete output ('columns, types, row count'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_schema, so an agent may need to inspect schemas to see the difference.

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 statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_schema, list_tables, or sample_rows, and no exclusions or alternatives. The only contextual hints are optional database/connection arguments, which are parameter-level rather than usage guidance.

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