✓ SAFE: Get table schema (columns, types, constraints, indexes, keys, defaults, nullability).

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 indicates the tool is 'SAFE' (likely read-only) and describes the output content. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. For a read-only tool, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 very concise at one sentence. It front-loades the 'SAFE' indicator and the main purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, parameters, behavior). The conciseness is good, but it could be slightly expanded to include parameter info without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required) with no descriptions in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover the verbosity parameter (summary vs detailed), the optional database_name, or return format. The tool is moderately complex, but the description is minimal.

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 compensate, but it does not explain any parameters. The 'table' parameter is implied but not described. The 'verbosity' and 'database_name' parameters are not mentioned. Without parameter explanations, the agent cannot know the meaning of values or defaults.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or database_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description implies it is for retrieving schema, but does not help the agent decide between siblings.

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