Describe table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the listing of metadata elements make it clear this is a read-only operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a describe operation of this simplicity, the description sufficiently communicates the behavior.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential information immediately. No filler or redundant content, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete. It lists what information is returned (column names, data types, nullability, primary key info) and does not require an output schema to explain return values. Slight gaps include no mention of whether the table must exist or ordering of results, but these are not critical for a basic describe operation.

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 100%, as both 'table' and 'schema' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('for a table'), and lists the exact information returned: column names, data types, nullability, and primary key info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_view, describe_procedure, and describe_function, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a table' provides clear context that this tool is specifically for tables, implying it should be used when you need schema information about a table. While it does not explicitly exclude views or procedures, the sibling tool names (describe_view, etc.) make the intended usage clear, and there are no misleading statements about when to use it.

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