describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's function and detailLevel optimization, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides specific guidance about the detailLevel parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic purpose and parameter guidance. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter semantics and behavioral context to be truly 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 description provides meaningful context for the detailLevel parameter by explaining what each enum value returns, which adds significant value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of other parameters like scope, baseId, table, includeFields, or includeViews, leaving 5 of the 6 parameters without semantic explanation in the description.

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 tool's purpose as describing Airtable base or table schema, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_bases' or 'query', which might also provide schema information in different contexts.

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?

The description provides some usage guidance by explaining how to use the detailLevel parameter to optimize context usage, which implies when to choose different detail levels. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bases' or 'query', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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