describe

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output content (columns, constraints, indexes), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (likely read-only), error conditions, or the meaning of the optional 'profile' parameter, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the key output elements, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 output schema exists (so return format is predefined), the description covers the core purpose sufficiently. However, it omits clarification of the 'profile' parameter and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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. It implies 'table' refers to a table name, but it does not explain the 'profile' parameter at all. The description adds no detail beyond the field titles, leaving the optional parameter ambiguous.

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 clearly states it describes a single table, and enumerates exactly what is returned (columns, types, nullability, defaults, constraints, indexes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tables' (which lists tables) and 'explain' (query execution plans), so an agent can immediately identify its scope.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need table metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'overview' or 'relations' for broader structural overviews. An agent can infer the purpose but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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