get_database_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return structure and positions the tool as a read-only prerequisite for query/write operations, strongly implying no side effects. It does not explicitly state error behavior or auth needs, but for a simple getter this is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant words. The purpose and return format are front-loaded, followed by clear usage guidance and parameter semantics. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage order, return shape, and parameter values. It also places the tool among siblings via the usage instruction, leaving no critical information missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only names the parameter 'ref' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by defining all accepted forms: 'an alias, a notion.so URL, an id, or an exact database title'. This gives the agent complete semantic grounding for the parameter.

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 states the tool returns 'Property names and types for a database' with a specific output shape '{title, url, properties}'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call it before query_database or update_row, making its role as a schema-fetching step clear.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before filtering with query_database or writing with update_row', giving a direct when-to-use instruction that routes the agent away from alternatives. It also specifies the accepted ref formats, which implicitly clarifies when the tool is applicable.

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