describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions a parameter behavior (include_row_count can be slow) but does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. Partial coverage.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a table'. No wasted 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?

The description covers the main outputs (columns, constraints, indexes) and acknowledges a performance aspect (row count slow). It is adequate for a metadata tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, though edge cases are missing.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'detailed information', which is generic. Baseline 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 retrieves detailed table information including columns, constraints, and indexes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables (which only lists) and execute_query (which runs queries).

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 use for schema exploration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or get_procedure_params. No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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