describe_table

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the dictionary-table data source and the enumerated content of the response (types, reference targets, mandatory/unique flags, parent table), which tells the agent what quality of output to expect.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, the sibling comparison second. No filler, and the differentiator lands where an agent will read it.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to close. Only minor items are missing, such as pagination or behavior on nonexistent table names, but nothing that would block a correct call.

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 100%, with both parameters documented including the default for include_inherited. The description's mention of 'parent table' loosely relates to inheritance but adds no syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Return full field schema for a ServiceNow table'), plus the underlying source (sys_dictionary) and the exact contents returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_table_schema, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 gives a concrete selection rule: prefer this over get_table_schema for empty tables or custom tables. It stops short of saying when get_table_schema is the better choice (e.g., large OOB tables where speed matters), so the routing guidance is one-directional.

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