get_sequence_info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only semantics, explicitly states NEXTVAL is not consumed so the counter is untouched, and enumerates the returned metadata fields. It omits error behavior (e.g., unknown sequence name) and required privileges.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is returned before the behavioral caveat and the alternative-query guidance. 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?

No output schema exists, so the enumeration of return fields (min_value, max_value, increment_by, etc.) usefully compensates. Scope, source, and safety profile are covered; only failure/error behavior for a missing sequence is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit rather than guess' guidance for schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Return metadata for a single sequence') and names the exact source view (ALL_SEQUENCES). The tool is cleanly distinguishable from sibling list_sequences (plural listing) and get_next_sequence_value (which mutates the counter).

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer this over querying ALL_SEQUENCES/DBA_SEQUENCES directly,' and the read-only note implicitly steers callers away from get_next_sequence_value when they don't want to advance the counter. It stops short of naming that sibling tool or stating when a metadata read is inappropriate.

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