db_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns column details but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication via connection_id, potential rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, listing the key details returned in a single, efficient sentence. Every word earns its place by specifying the output content (name, type, nullable, default, constraints) without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple descriptive 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It clarifies the tool's purpose and output scope, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. The description doesn't compensate by clarifying what 'connection_id' or 'table' represent, leaving parameters minimally documented. Baseline 3 applies as the schema provides basic structure, but the description fails to enhance understanding.

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 what the tool does: 'Column details for a table' specifies the resource (table columns) and the action (describe details). It distinguishes from siblings like db_schema (overall schema) or db_relationships (foreign keys), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', keeping it at 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like db_schema or db_query. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name and description alone.

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