athena_describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only metadata inspection operation, but it does not attempt to disclose what happens for missing tables, permission requirements, or any other behavioral nuances. For a simple describe operation this is acceptable, though not deeply transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding or repetition of the tool name.

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 three-string-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It lacks explicit sibling routing and deeper caveats, but the combination of the short summary, parameter descriptions, and output schema makes it reasonably 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters in plain language. Saying database is 'The Glue database name' adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare title 'Database.' The table parameter explanation is somewhat tautological, but overall the parameter semantics are sufficiently clarified.

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 operation: 'Show columns and partition keys for a single table.' It specifies a concrete verb and resource and implies a distinction from list-oriented Athena siblings like athena_list_tables. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them.

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 intended use is implied by the description: inspect table metadata/columns/partitions. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related tools such as athena_list_tables or db_describe_schema, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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