✓ SAFE: Describe table columns and constraints.

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

The description includes the explicit marker 'SAFE' which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects, such as error behavior, performance characteristics, or assumptions about the database connection.

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, using a single sentence. However, it is effective and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The structure is clear and easily parsed.

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 description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but omits important context about return format, optional behaviors (e.g., what verbosity levels do), and any dependencies on other tools or state. It is not complete enough for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the tool description does not explain them either. It fails to clarify the meaning or usage of 'table', 'verbosity', or 'database_name'. Coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrast with similar operations (e.g., when to use describe_table vs list_tables).

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