describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'column information and structure', which gives some output context, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether it works on all resource types equally, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the return value. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, and every sentence adds value (purpose and output). However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating resource types or adding brief usage hints without losing efficiency.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter nuances. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly (e.g., format of 'column information'). It meets the bare minimum for a read-like operation but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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 both parameters ('name' and 'database') fully. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'name' refers to a model, table, or knowledge base, but doesn't clarify syntax, format, or how 'database' context interacts with the resource. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Describe a model, table, or knowledge base' with the verb 'describe' and resources 'model, table, or knowledge base'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' (which lists names) by focusing on detailed structure information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_kb' or 'query', which might also return structural details in some contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'describe' over 'list_tables' (for overview vs. details) or 'search_kb' (for content vs. structure), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a connected database. Usage is implied only by the action 'describe', with no explicit context or exclusions.

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