describe_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it inspects structure, returns specific metadata (column names, data types, row count, sample values), and has conditional behavior based on the sheet parameter. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only inspection tool, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second provides usage context, and the third explains the conditional behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral aspects, and parameter implications adequately without needing to duplicate structured data.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the sheet omission behavior and implying header_row usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('inspect the structure', 'returns column names, inferred data types...') and resources ('sheet treated as a database table'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sheets, read_range, and sql_query by focusing on structural metadata rather than data retrieval or manipulation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this before writing SQL queries to understand the available columns and their types') and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying the fallback behavior ('When sheet is omitted, returns a list of descriptions for all sheets'), which differentiates it from list_sheets.

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