Describe view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (columns and SQL definition) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential errors (e.g., if the view does not exist), or any permission requirements. This is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 redundant phrasing. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and outputs without wasting words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list vs. JSON), but the outputs described are straightforward enough to infer. A slight gap is the lack of mention of any edge cases or error behavior.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('View name' and 'Schema name, e.g. dbo') with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds marginal value by hinting at what the parameters are used for, but it does not go beyond the schema.

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 ('a view'), and enumerates the two outputs: column names/types and SQL definition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table and describe_procedure, which target other object types.

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 view' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the inclusion of 'SQL definition' differentiates it from describe_table, which would be appropriate for tables. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the context is clear enough for most selection scenarios.

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