Describe MySQL table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output ('column metadata and optional indexes') but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or mention permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'describe', which is a conventional MySQL operation, so this is moderately transparent but not fully disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without redundant words or additional filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 introspection tool, the description provides a high-level summary of the return value ('column metadata and optional indexes') but does not elaborate on what fields the column metadata includes (e.g., type, nullable, key). Given there is no output schema, more detail would help complete the picture, but the description is not severely inadequate.

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% description coverage for all three parameters, with each parameter including a meaningful description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already documents them clearly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('table') and the returned content ('column metadata and optional indexes'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like mysql_query, mysql_list_tables, and mysql_list_databases by focusing on table schema introspection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to choose it over mysql_query or mysql_list_tables. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving usage up to inference from the tool name and sibling names.

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