describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get the schema' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the table does not exist, or any permissions required. The verb implies non-mutating but insufficient context is given for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 one sentence plus an argument definition, front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, and the structure with 'Args:' is clean 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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidance but remains sufficient for a basic describe operation. The sibling tools make the intended use clear enough.

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 0%, so the description's 'Args: table: Table name to describe' provides essential meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. It clarifies the purpose of the parameter, though it does not specify format, constraints, or examples.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'schema of a table' with explicit details (columns, types, keys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables, query, and get_database_info.

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 implied: use this when you need a table's schema. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over query or execute, nor any exclusion criteria. It falls short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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