get_table_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully warns that full_description can add a lot of text ('kan veel tekst zijn'), which matters for context budget, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, navigation guidance second, and arguments last, which is the right order for a lookup tool. Slightly verbose in restating that it is a description of a table, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and the description is sufficient for a two-parameter read lookup. The remaining gaps are the upstream step for obtaining table_id and behavior on invalid IDs; minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: table_id is illustrated with concrete example IDs ('83765NED', '85874ENG'), and full_description is explained as adding the long official explanation with a size caveat. It doesn't state the default for full_description or any ID-format constraints, but both params gain meaning beyond the bare 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 gives a specific verb+resource: it returns one table's description plus its dimensions (filter targets) and measure count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_table_measures for columns and list_dimension_values for dimension values, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It states the usage context ('Dit is het startpunt om door een tabel te navigeren') and names two follow-up alternatives with their purposes. What it doesn't state is how table_id is obtained in the first place (search_tables), so the workflow entry point is implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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