db.table_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Inspect' strongly conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the list of inspected elements adds behavioral context about the scope of the operation. However, it does not mention return format or potential errors, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all relevant outputs without filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and it is immediately scannable.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description provides adequate context by enumerating the exact metadata returned. It lacks detail on return structure, but the list of items is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly refers to 'one table' which clarifies the 'table' parameter, but gives no guidance on the 'database' parameter, including its optionality or purpose. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly identifies the resource ('one table') and the exact information returned: columns, indexes, constraints, foreign-key relationships, and triggers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db.indexes or db.constraints, which each cover only one aspect.

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 this tool (when you need comprehensive metadata about a single table) but does not explicitly contrast it with specialized siblings such as db.indexes or db.schema. No when-not guidance or alternative tools are mentioned.

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