describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns (columns/types/constraints), or failure behavior for unknown tables. 'Describe' implies a metadata read, but little behavioral context is added.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple metadata 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?

For a simple describe operation with full schema coverage, the essential invocation details are present: target table and optional server. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'structure', though an explicit note on return format or read-only behavior would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both server and table_name. The description's 'specific table' aligns with table_name but adds no syntax or format nuance 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 identifies a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('structure of a specific table'), making the operation clear and distinct from list_tables (which lists names) and query (which reads data). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which prevents 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 the tool is for inspecting the schema of a single known table, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as list_tables for discovering tables. An agent must infer appropriate use from the name and surrounding context.

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