describe_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'describe columns and primary key metadata' implies a read-only operation and specifies the output, which provides some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention error handling or permission requirements. For a read-only metadata tool, the lack of such warnings is less critical, so a mid-range score 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 a single, compact sentence: 'Describe columns and primary key metadata for a table.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundant words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the optional schema/database parameters, provide usage guidance versus sibling tools, or mention any behavioral caveats. For a tool with three parameters, this is incomplete. The description only covers the core purpose, not the full context needed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only mentions 'table' in the context of 'a table', but the 'schema' and 'database' parameters are not explained at all. Users are left to guess what these mean (e.g., database schema vs. JSON schema) and whether they are required for table qualification. The description adds minimal value beyond what a user could infer from the parameter names.

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 action ('describe') and the resource ('table'), specifying the exact metadata returned ('columns and primary key metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (which list tables) and explain_query (which explains queries). A specific verb and resource make 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, connection requirements, or when schema/database qualification is needed. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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