Describe table

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial value by detailing the return payload (columns, constraints, indexes, comments), which is especially important since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose and return details, and the second explains when to use it. Every clause 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?

With 2 simple parameters, annotations covering safety, and a detailed description of the return contents, nothing essential is missing. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters ('Table or view name, unqualified' and 'Schema name.'). The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Full description of one table') and enumerates the exact metadata returned (columns, types, nullability, defaults, keys, constraints, indexes, comments). It is clearly distinct from list_schemas/list_tables, but does not explicitly separate itself from table_relationships, even though foreign keys are included.

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 phrase 'This is the core tool once you know which table you want' gives clear contextual guidance: use it after table discovery, not for browsing schemas or tables. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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