describe_table

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully specifies what is returned (columns, keys, indexes), but says nothing about the database/schema resolution behavior or engine-specific caveats. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than over-long.

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 values needn't be explained, but for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description gives no help on parameter roles, on supported databases, or on when to prefer this over list_tables/describe_collection. Substantial gaps remain.

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 never mentions the database, table, or optional schema parameters. It does not explain the database-vs-schema distinction or why the optional schema argument exists (disambiguation), leaving all three parameters undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and enumerates the resources inspected (columns, primary/foreign keys, indexes), which clearly distinguishes it from list_tables and describe_collection. It does not explicitly reference any sibling, but the object of inspection makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_tables or describe_collection. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call to learn a table's structure before writing SQL.

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