db_describe_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' reasonably implies a read-only operation and the sentence discloses what information comes back (names, types, constraints), but it says nothing about behavior when the table is absent, permission requirements, or whether system/catalog tables are visible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essential verb and returned fields come first and nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return content but omits error behavior and the exact identifier form for the one required parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps given the zero schema coverage.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not. 'For a table' gives no guidance on whether the name should be schema-qualified, case-sensitive, or an exact identifier, which is exactly the ambiguity that breaks DB introspection calls.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (column names, types, constraints for a table), which is clearly distinct from db_list_tables (which tables exist) and db_query (run SQL). It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the introspection step before querying, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to db_list_tables/db_query for discovery versus execution.

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