describe_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only operation, not that it requires no special permissions, and not what happens for a nonexistent or ambiguous table name. The output schema covers return shape, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The trailing "Args:" block is boilerplate that merely echoes the parameter name and schema title, adding length without information.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the core purpose is adequately conveyed. However, the absence of annotations plus the crowded sibling set means the definition should at minimum say this is a safe read and how it differs from get_create_table or get_table_indexes.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, yet its only line restates the parameter name ("Name of the table to describe"). It does not clarify whether the name should be qualified (database.schema.table), case-sensitive, or quoted.

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 and resource ("Get the schema ... of a specific table") and enumerates what the schema includes (columns, types, keys), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_create_table or get_table_indexes, which likely return related structural information.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite five siblings with adjacent purposes. The only implicit signal is "of a specific table," hinting that a table name must already be known (e.g., from list_tables), but that prerequisite is never stated.

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