describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes a read operation returning field properties, but does not disclose any potential side effects, auth needs, or performance implications. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter details with an example. No unnecessary text.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of fields with properties) and how to use it. It could optionally mention error handling or limitations, but the information provided is sufficient for basic use.

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 provides no description for the table_name parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: it explains the parameter represents a PeopleSoft record name, provides examples, and notes that the 'PS_' prefix is optional. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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?

Clearly states it gets the structure of a PeopleSoft table/record including fields, types, lengths, and descriptions. While there is a sibling get_record_definition that might overlap, the description is specific enough to distinguish its scope.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool FIRST to understand fields before writing queries, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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