get_column_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if the column does not exist, whether there are side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The output schema exists but is not described to compensate.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It feels concise and adds the key nuance about authority. However, it could be structured with separate sentences for behavioral notes without significant length increase, though it is not verbose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not detailed), the description lacks return format details and error scenarios. The tool is simple, but with three parameters and no guidance on input formatting, it is partially complete. For an agent, more context on expected input patterns or output structure would be beneficial.

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%, meaning the description adds no value for parameters. The parameter names (schema_name, table_name, column_name) are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify expected formats, case sensitivity, or any constraints beyond the schema. With no param information, the score is minimal.

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 gets the authoritative comment for a column, specifying that it defines business meaning and calculation logic, and to trust it over the column name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_comment (table-level) or get_all_column_comments (all columns), providing a specific verb and resource with scope.

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 (when authoritative business meaning/calculation logic is needed) and tells the agent to trust this over column names. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like search_columns or get_table_comment, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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