fusion_docs_describe_table

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

Annotations already mark this as readonly, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it uses a docs-derived snapshot rather than pod ground truth, returns not_found rather than silently succeeding, and reveals timing characteristics. This helps the agent reason about correctness and failure modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, differentiation, caveats, then parameter details. Despite being detailed, every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes the key decision points and argument semantics easy to scan.

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 the output schema exists and the tool is documented as a read-only snapshot lookup, the description sufficiently covers return contents, limits, fallback behavior, and parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool successfully is missing.

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%, so the description fully carries parameter documentation. It explains that table is an exact table/view name with an example, that columns_like is a case-insensitive substring filter on column name or description, and that limit caps the number of returned column entries. This is exactly what an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe a table from the local Oracle-docs snapshot'. It clearly enumerates what the tool returns (column business descriptions, primary key, foreign keys, indexes, flexfield mappings, view SQL) and explicitly contrasts itself with fusion_describe_table, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over fusion_describe_table for exploration' and explains why by comparing performance and semantic richness. It also provides fallback instructions: when the snapshot returns not_found, use the live tools because custom objects and case-twin duplicates exist only on the pod.

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