describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It lists the returned fields, which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires table existence, or any error behavior. It doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but it leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates exactly what information is returned. Every word is useful, with no filler or repetition.

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 lack of an output schema, the description attempts to list the output fields, which aids the agent. However, it does not specify the exact result format (e.g., list of rows, order) or handle error cases, and it relies on the agent inferring the read-only nature. It is adequate for a simple metadata tool but leaves minor gaps.

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 schema already describes table_name as 'Name of the table to describe' (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add extra parameter meaning like format or qualification requirements. The description's mention of 'a table' is redundant with 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 detailed column information for a table, enumerating specific attributes. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables (table names) and list_indexes (index details), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is appropriate when column-level metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that list_tables is for table names, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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