Describe table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the key behavioral trait of safety. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure such as error cases, authorization requirements, or performance characteristics, but for a simple read-only introspection tool this is an acceptable gap.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the core operation and the second provides actionable timing guidance. There is no filler, repetition, or schema duplication.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation, this description is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger with a note about error behavior or an example output, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'schema' and 'table_name'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose, so it stays at the baseline since the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource: column names, data types, and nullability for a table. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables, list_schemas, and run_query, which are about enumeration or query execution.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'before querying a table you haven't seen the schema for.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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