db_get_columns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description reveals what the returned details cover, but it does not address error behavior, schema search semantics, or whether any side effects occur. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Exactly one concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place: it names the action, the target resource, and the key facets returned. 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?

For a straightforward metadata-read tool, the description covers the essential contract: what the agent gets back (data types, nullable flags, key constraints). The absence of an output schema raises the burden slightly, but the description provides a reasonable expectation of the return payload. It is slightly short of complete because it omits clarifications like the all-schemas search behavior of schemaName, though the schema partially covers that.

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 the 'table' and 'schemaName' parameters. The description reinforces what 'table' represents but adds no new semantic meaning for either parameter beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'column details for a specific table' and enumerates what is returned (data types, nullable flags, key constraints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db_get_tables and db_get_schema without ambiguity.

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 usage: call this when you need column-level metadata for a given table. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives such as db_get_tables or db_get_schema, so the guidance is only contextual, not directive.

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