profile_columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds real behavioral context about sampling limits, sample_limit=0 disabling samples, and the max_rows cap, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence, but the parenthetical stacking makes it awkward and slightly ambiguous. Every phrase is information-dense, yet the lack of clear structure reduces readability.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the description leaves several parameters unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between 'up to 20 samples' and the sample_limit default. For a tool with six parameters, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics, but it only explains sample_limit and max_rows. Required parameters like relation and important optional parameters like columns, duckdb_path, and project_path are not described. The 'up to 20 samples' claim is also potentially confusing given the default sample_limit of 5.

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 produces: per-column counts, min/max, and samples. This is specific enough to identify it as a data-profiling tool rather than a schema or row-preview tool, though it never explicitly names a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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 read-only and sampling behavior implies this is for quick exploratory profiling, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like describe_table or preview_query. The description gives context but no exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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