getTableDetails

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that schema/connection falls back to current context, which is helpful. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or performance implications, but for a read-only query tool, the level is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. information is front-loaded and each sentence adds new, useful information. Perfectly concise.

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?

With only 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and usage scope. It covers the return types (columns, indexes, etc.) and context inheritance, leaving little ambiguity.

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 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the ability to pass multiple table names and the fallback behavior for connectionId/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 clearly states it retrieves detailed information about tables (columns, indexes, primary keys, foreign keys) and supports multiple tables in one call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listTables (which likely lists only names).

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 tells when to use the tool (to get detailed table info), implies context usage, and indirectly suggests that listTables is for simpler listings. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like schema inspection vs. data retrieval.

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