describe_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function ('Get column definitions and the SQL definition') without revealing whether special permissions are required, potential error cases, or the exact structure of the returned data.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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 appropriately hints at the return content ('column definitions and the SQL definition'), which is sufficient for a simple describe tool. However, it lacks details about the format of the column definitions or any prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity and comprehensive schema make this acceptable.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (view, schema, database), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'view' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a view', while specifying the exact outputs: 'column definitions and the SQL definition'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table (for tables) and get_stored_procedure_definition (for procedures).

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 implies the tool is for viewing metadata about a view, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as describe_table or get_function_definition. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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