Describe Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds which aspects of the table are described (metadata, variables, qualifiers, size), which is useful but not essential. No contradiction with annotations; the added context is moderate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Describe', and contains no redundancy. It is concise but so brief that it omits key information, though that is penalized in other dimensions. For what it says, it is efficiently structured.

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?

Despite having strong annotations and an output schema, the description does not explain how to supply the required parameters. The tool appears simple, but the lack of parameter guidance leaves the agent guessing about identifier and table formats. This makes the description incomplete for a safe, correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It fails to explain identifier, table, or version. The agent must infer from parameter names, which are ambiguous (e.g., 'identifier' could be a record ID or table ID). This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the resource (a single HEPData table) and the specifics covered (metadata, variables, qualifiers, size). However, it does not contrast with the sibling get_table, which could also describe a table, so the differentiation is left to the reader.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_table or get_record. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. The agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others.

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