table_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. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only 'Get' and adds meaningful detail: the row count is explicitly an estimation, and it discloses that the tool returns generated DDL and multiple metadata categories. It omits an explicit read-only or permission note, but the wording adequately signals a non-mutating operation.

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 that front-loads the action and object, then uses a colon-delimited list to pack the full set of returned information. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, the description covers purpose and the key behavioral nuance (estimated row count). It does not explicitly route to sibling tools, but an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%: both db and table already carry descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info about a single table or view,' followed by a concrete enumeration of what is returned (columns, types, constraints, indexes, foreign keys, triggers, DDL SQL, row count estimation). The 'single table or view' qualifier and the depth of listed details distinguish it from sibling tools like schema and query.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use table_info versus the sibling tools (schema, query, explain). The description implies a use case through scope ('single table or view') and the detailed metadata list, but it does not state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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