catalog_download_table_profile

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

The description discloses that if the table has not been profiled, it returns a recommendation to run catalog_run_adhoc_analysis with pre-filled parameters rather than an empty profile. This is valuable behavioral insight. It also explains that instance_id takes precedence if both identifiers are given. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it adequately covers key behaviors but could mention potential error cases or performance implications.

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 structured into three paragraphs, each addressing a distinct aspect: what it does, return behavior, and parameter guidance. It is not overly verbose but each sentence adds information. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage, no required params, and an output schema exists (so return format is defined elsewhere), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter usage, edge case for unprofiled tables, and workflow integration. It is complete for the agent to understand how and when to use the tool.

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 already has 100% description coverage for the three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the difference between instance_id and resource_uri, the precedence rule, and the default value for level. It also provides usage context (e.g., resource_uri allows avoiding instance id). This adds value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool downloads a catalog table's data dictionary and profile as CSV. It specifies the verb 'download', the resource 'catalog table data dictionary and profile', and the output format 'CSV'. This is distinct from siblings like 'catalog_get_adhoc_analysis' which returns analysis results differently.

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 explains how to identify the table using either instance_id or resource_uri, and advises using resource_uri for a seamless search→profile→download workflow. It also notes that if the table hasn't been profiled, the tool recommends running catalog_run_adhoc_analysis instead. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when partial metadata is needed).

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