describe_table

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has performance implications. It only mentions data sources (information_schema + SHOW FULL COLUMNS) but lacks behavioral context like side effects or output size.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with 'Column definitions for a table' and adds technical details without unnecessary fluff.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, possible limits, or any nuances like handling of fully qualified names. For a table schema tool, more completeness is expected.

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 coverage is 67%, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. The required 'table' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining its format or usage.

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 returns column definitions for a table, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_procedure or list_tables. However, it could be more explicit about the verb 'describe' and the resource 'table'.

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. Given many sibling tools (e.g., explore_table, show_create_table), the description should specify use cases for column-level details vs. overall structure.

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