get_table_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the output includes partition columns but does not mention error behavior, missing-table handling, or the shape of the returned schema beyond what the output schema already implies.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses the parenthetical 'DESCRIBE table' to disambiguate. Every part adds value, and there is no waste.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, a clearly named read operation, and an available output schema, the description supplies sufficient context for a basic call. It is complete enough for selecting the tool, though a small note about parameter semantics would move it to a 5.

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 provides 0% description coverage for db_name and table_name, and the description does not elaborate on these parameters. Their names are reasonably self-explanatory, but for a low-coverage schema, the description should define what db_name and table_name refer to (e.g., catalog/schema/table naming, expected format) and it does not.

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 states a clear verb+resource and enumerates the table metadata contents (column names, data types, comments, partition columns). This differentiates it implicitly from siblings like get_table_comment or get_partitions, though it never names them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_preview, get_ddl, or get_table_comment, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the plain-language description alone.

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