Get Table Descriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that descriptions are 'saved', implying a read of persisted data, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any interaction with a connected database beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential action and scope without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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-only getter with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides the core purpose sufficiently. However, it could be more complete by noting that it only returns descriptions that were previously saved, and it does not explain what the return structure looks like (though no output schema exists). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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% with 3 required parameters (table_name, database_id, rag_config_id), each having at least a basic description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the table/database scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('saved table and column descriptions') scoped to 'a table in a database'. It is distinct from sibling semantic model tools like save_documentation or remove_documentation, and its purpose is immediately understandable.

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 intended use is implied by the description (retrieve previously saved descriptions), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing database connection or saved documentation. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use statements.

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