get_table_owners_by_fqn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read operation but does not specify whether a list of owners is returned, the format, possible errors (e.g., table not found), or permissions required. With no annotation support, this minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and return shape.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, but the description omits return value structure, behavioral nuances, and usage context. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide at least minimal detail about outputs and error conditions. It falls short of being complete.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The tool description mentions 'by fully qualified table name,' which partially explains the parameter's role, but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., catalog.schema.table) or whether the name is case-sensitive. The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'table owners' scoped by fully qualified table name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_table_columns_by_fqn and get_table_by_fqn by focusing on owners. The minor grammatical issue ('a table owners') does not impair understanding.

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 siblings like get_table_by_fqn or search_entities_with_query. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. This is a significant gap given five sibling tools with overlapping table-related purposes.

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