Describe Database Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the nuance that it 'Does not read table data', which is useful clarification beyond the annotations. However, it provides no additional behavioral details beyond that, so the added value is modest.

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 clearly states the primary action and a crucial negative constraint. It contains no redundancy and is efficient in conveying the tool's scope.

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?

The tool has an output schema indicating it returns table structure, so the description need not explain return values. The description covers the purpose, the constraint, and the prerequisite of a saved connection. It is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it lacks explicit error-handling context, which is not essential here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning or alternatives, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Describes a table's structure (columns, types, nullability, primary keys)' for a saved database connection, and clarifies it 'Does not read table data'. This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from data-querying siblings like unfour.db.query_readonly and unfour.db.list_tables.

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 usage for schema inspection and explicitly states it does not read table data, which hints at when not to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use guidance, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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