Describe Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the result includes column types, default values, or indexes. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't contradict but also doesn't enrich beyond the annotation-set baseline.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Show columns and schema') and specifies the target ('a specific table'). There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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, read-only schema inspection tool, the description combined with the schema and annotations provides sufficient information. The schema fully documents the two parameters, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. While the description doesn't explicitly mention the optional 'database' parameter or return details, these are covered elsewhere, so the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both 'table' and 'database' clearly described in the schema. The description mentions 'a specific table' which aligns with the required 'table' parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 holds; the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Show columns and schema for a specific table'. The verb 'Show' and the resource 'columns and schema' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like list_tables (which lists table names) and get_table_sample (which returns data). An agent can immediately distinguish this from other schema-related tools without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_indexes or get_foreign_keys. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema alone, with no explicit routing to this tool over others.

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