describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., missing table), or what the output format looks like beyond mentioning the parameter constraint. The only behavioral hint is the parameter naming rule, which is more about parameter semantics.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a parameter detail. No filler or redundant wording. Every sentence 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose and parameter constraint. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not explain them. Missing usage guidelines and behavioral specifics are noted in other dimensions, but for its simplicity, the description is largely 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a clear explanation of the 'table' parameter: 'Unquoted table name (letters, digits, underscore)'. This adds meaningful syntax details beyond the schema's generic title 'Table', helping the agent invoke the tool correctly. However, it could be more explicit about why quoting matters or provide an example.

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 function: 'Describe columns for one table in the bound database.' The verb 'describe' plus the resource 'columns for one table' and scope 'bound database' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (lists tables) and mysql_query (runs queries).

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 implies the tool is used when you need column information for a specific table, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. 'Describe columns for one table' gives context but no direct guidance on choosing this over list_tables or mysql_query.

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