describe_integration_tables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'describe' (implying read-only) and includes fields and transform steps, but it does not explicitly state whether it is a read-only operation, what authentication or permissions are needed, or what the response format will be. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence captures the essential purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 is far too skeletal for a tool with no annotations and an opaque parameter. It does not explain what 'payload' means, how to specify which tables to describe, or what the output schema contains. Given the availability of sibling tools for listing and altering tables, more context is needed to position this tool correctly.

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 has one generic parameter 'payload' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the payload at all, leaving its purpose and expected content entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a parameter-driven tool.

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: 'Describe one or more integration tables, including fields and transform steps.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and identifies the resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_integration_tables'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'list_integration_tables' or 'test_integration_table_transform_steps' exist, but the description does not indicate how this tool relates to them.

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