db_describe_table

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read, and listing the returned schema elements adds useful context. Still, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, what happens for missing tables, or whether authorization is needed beyond the given table name.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately lists the key output components. Every word earns its place with 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 simple single-parameter introspection tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly and understand the expected result. It lacks explicit edge-case behavior, such as errors for nonexistent tables, but the low complexity and complete parameter documentation keep this from being a significant 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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter described as 'Table name', so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying that the table's schema is being retrieved, but it does not specify details like schema qualification, quoting, or case sensitivity.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema of a table') and enumerates the exact content (columns, types, nullability, defaults). This distinguishes it from siblings like db_list_tables, db_table_indexes, and db_foreign_keys, which target different aspects or scopes.

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 this is the tool to use when you need the column-level schema of a single table, rather than listing tables, querying data, or inspecting indexes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over db_schema_snapshot or the more specialized schema tools, nor does it mention exclusions.

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