MCP Vertica

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 'Table structure information as a string,' but doesn't describe format details, error handling, permissions required, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. There's minimal waste, though the Args section could be more integrated into the flow. Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks behavioral context. It covers the core functionality but doesn't address error cases, return format details, or usage relative to siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters (table_name and schema) in the Args section, explaining their purposes. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond basic definitions (e.g., format constraints or examples). With two parameters fully listed but no rich details, this meets the baseline for adequate coverage.

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: 'Get the structure of a table including columns, data types, and constraints.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('structure of a table'), and scope ('including columns, data types, and constraints'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_indexes or list_views, which might also provide structural information about database objects.

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 sibling tools like list_indexes or list_views, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., when table_name is invalid). Usage is implied from the purpose statement but lacks explicit context.

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