get_table_by_fqn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, error handling, or whether the response includes metadata, columns, or other details. It adds no information beyond what the tool name implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is very concise, it remains appropriately sized for a simple getter; the lack of detail is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools for columns, owners, and sample data, the description does not clarify what 'a table' means in terms of response content. It leaves the agent to wonder if the result includes nested fields, relationships, or just basic metadata.

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%, and the description merely repeats the parameter name 'fully qualified table name' without specifying its format (e.g., 'catalog.schema.table') or providing an example. No additional meaning is added over the schema's property title.

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 action (get) and resource (table) with the lookup method (by fully qualified name). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_table_owners_by_fqn and get_table_columns_by_fqn by focusing on the table object itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_entities_with_query or get_list_of_tables. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context for invocation.

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