aism_db_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the database:read permission requirement, which annotations do not cover, but it does not flag that an 'exact row count' can be expensive on large InnoDB tables, nor how a missing table is reported.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the output contract front-loaded ahead of the permission requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields itself, which is the right compensation. Minor gaps remain: error behavior for an unknown table and the cost implications of an exact row count on a large table.

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 both 'site' and 'table' are already documented, including cross-references to aism_sites and aism_db_tables. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('one table') and enumerates what is returned: columns, types, indexes, exact row count. That is enough to distinguish it in spirit from aism_db_tables (which lists tables) and aism_db_query (which runs arbitrary SQL), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is a stated prerequisite ('Requires database:read') but no explicit when-to-use versus aism_db_tables or aism_db_query. The agent must infer that this is the structural-inspection path for a single known table, which is a reasonable but unstated inference.

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