describe_table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return surface (columns, types, flags, and index kinds such as Bitmap/PGM/FM/ANN/Sparse/MinHash). It says nothing about behavior on a missing table, permissions, or whether the call is purely read-only, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contents. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values and does so adequately by listing the column/type/flag/index details. Only minor omissions remain, such as error behavior for an unknown table or the exact shape of the returned schema object.

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 single 'table' parameter is 100% documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no naming/qualification rules (e.g., schema-qualified names, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('a table') and enumerates what is returned: columns, types, flags, and secondary indexes. It is distinguishable from list_tables and database_overview by its single-table focus, though it never names those siblings.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it needs a table's schema. There is no explicit 'use this instead of list_tables/database_overview when...' guidance, and no note on prerequisites such as the table needing to exist.

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