describeTable

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no data modification) or clarify the response format. It is adequate but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary scope restriction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core purpose and allowed inputs. Although it does not describe the return value format, the phrase 'columns and indexes' already implies the output structure. For this low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'table' with an enum and description. The tool description merely repeats the allowed values ('payslips or form106 only'), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 purpose: 'Get columns and indexes for a table'. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource (columns and indexes) is well-defined, and the scope restriction ('payslips or form106 only') distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform sync, download, or query operations.

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 a clear constraint on when the tool is applicable: 'payslips or form106 only'. This tells the agent not to use it for other tables. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases (e.g., listTables) or state when to prefer them, so it falls short of a 5.

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