get-tables-details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and the list input suggests batching, but it does not disclose authorization requirements, error or partial-failure behavior, or what kinds of details are included; the output schema covers return values but not these operational traits.

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 short and front-loaded, with one purpose sentence and one parameter note. There is minor redundancy and awkward docstring-style formatting with 'Args:', which keeps it from being maximally concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and input format adequately. It could be more complete about sibling selection and failure behavior, but the essential information needed to invoke it is present.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description supplies important meaning for the only parameter: it is a list of full table names in catalog.schema.table format. It does not cover edge cases such as duplicate names or maximum list length, so it is not a 5.

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 a specific verb, 'Retrieve', and a specific resource, 'detailed information for the given tables', so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get-tables-in-catalogs-schemas or find-tables-by-name, so it is not a 5.

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 implies usage when the caller already has full table names and needs details, but it does not state when to choose this over listing or searching siblings, nor does it provide explicit prerequisites or exclusions.

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