Describe table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently lists the result contents and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential caveats such as row-count cost on large tables, required permissions, or error behavior for missing tables.

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-organized sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the returned metadata without any filler. Every part 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?

The tool is fairly simple and the parameter schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema the description would benefit from a little more context, such as usage intent or caveats. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters (table and connection) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the 'one table' scope and does not provide additional parameter nuance 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe one table', then enumerates the exact metadata returned (columns, indexes, foreign keys, CREATE statement, row count). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_tables, sample_rows, query, and explain_query.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need schema-level details about a single table rather than listing tables, sampling rows, or running queries. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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