Table/schema details and statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety baseline is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that exact_count scans the table and that a warehouse may be started (auto never starts one), plus the 'depends on input' safety classification — useful side-effect and cost context beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the returned-field inventory, then the alternate listing mode and safety note. It is dense but every clause carries information; the long parenthetical field list is borderline verbose but useful for an inspection tool.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't detail return shapes, and it correctly focuses on the dual mode, stats cost semantics, and safety classification. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling alternatives are 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 100%, so the schema already carries name, stats enum, pagination, and warehouse resolution details. The description largely restates these (pagination for schema listing, stats categories) without adding format or syntax beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) on a specific resource (Unity Catalog table), enumerates exactly what metadata is returned, and covers the distinct second mode (listing tables in a schema from a two-part name). This is easily separable from the manage_* siblings, which are mutations.

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 two usage modes (full table name vs catalog.schema) are explained, which is genuinely helpful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. execute_sql, manage_uc_objects) for overlapping needs.

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