describe_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the read-oriented nature and what the result contains (columns, types, keys, comments), but does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a simple describe-style tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific details returned. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains both what to provide and what will be returned. It omits edge-case behavior such as errors for nonexistent tables, but the information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 the parameter description ('The name of the table to describe') already explains the only input. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific action ('Get detailed information') and a specific resource ('about a specific table'), and enumerates the contents it returns: columns, types, keys, and comments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_keys (keys only) or get_tables (list tables), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving detailed metadata about a single named table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope ('specific table') implies it is not for listing or broad schema retrieval.

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