get_view_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent enough: 'Return column metadata via sys.columns' indicates a read-only catalog lookup, and listing supported platform types adds useful context. It does not discuss edge cases like missing views or permissions, but the operation's nature is clear.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence applicability note, and a brief Args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 getter tool with three fully described parameters and an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what inputs are needed, and where it works, so an agent can invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions, yet the description documents all three arguments: workspace, item, and qualified_name. It also specifies accepted formats (name or GUID) and gives a concrete example for qualified_name, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('column metadata for a SQL view'), and even names the underlying mechanism ('sys.columns'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_table_columns or get_view.

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 clear context by stating it works on both Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints, and the target is unambiguously a SQL view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clearly implied.

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