overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add meaning by revealing that the call returns row estimates and column names, and emphasizes it is a single compact call. However, it does not mention side effects (likely read-only), any requirements like authentication, or what happens when the filter matches nothing. These are not necessarily critical for an overview tool, and an output schema exists, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and value proposition. It wastes no words and includes a clear recommendation for usage. Structure is exemplary for a concise definition.

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?

An output schema exists, which presumably describes the return structure, so the description does not need to detail that. However, the description omits any explanation of the 'profile' parameter and does not mention edge cases or requirements beyond the basic filter. For a fairly simple tool with two optional parameters and a comprehensive output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly covers 'filter' by mentioning the optional table-name filter, but the 'profile' parameter is entirely unexplained. Since profile is an additional optional parameter with no clarification, the description partially compensates but leaves a meaningful gap for one of the two parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Orientation card for an unknown database: every table with row estimate and its column names in ONE compact call.' It names the specific resource (database tables) and the delivered content (row estimate and column names), and it explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying to use this before tables/describe round-trips. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the detailed query tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'use this before tables/describe round-trips' clearly says when to invoke this tool in a workflow. It also mentions the optional table-name filter, implying a typical use case for filtering. This outperforms many tools that leave usage timing implicit.

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