(aws-dynamodb): TableV2 should explicitly document that it translate to a CFN AWS::DynamoDB::GlobalTable

### Describe the issue

Most of the external documentation seems to indicate that `TableV2` (and `AWS::DynamoDB::GlobalTable`) should be preferred going forward.
* [Announcement blog post](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/a-new-and-improved-aws-cdk-construct-for-amazon-dynamodb-tables/)
* [re:Post article](https://repost.aws/articles/ARCwOHl97VQwy4yRy0XdHlxA/implementing-dynamodb-with-the-cloud-development-kit-cdk)
* [GitHub issue regarding the confusing naming](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/issues/28976#issuecomment-2020212233): explicitly states that `TableV2` should be used going forward.

However, `AWS::DynamoDB::GlobalTable` is different to `AWS::DynamoDB::Table` and the distinction should be made in the docstring at minimum so that users are aware of the differences.

Related: #28976

### Links

The existing CDK documentation does not make a clear distinction between the two constructs:
- [`Table`](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cdk/api/v2/docs/aws-cdk-lib.aws_dynamodb.Table.html)
- [`TableV2`](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cdk/api/v2/docs/aws-cdk-lib.aws_dynamodb.TableV2.html)

Start with the TableV2 API documentation and compare it with the Table documentation linked in the issue. Update the TableV2 docstring so it explicitly identifies AWS::DynamoDB::GlobalTable and clearly distinguishes it from AWS::DynamoDB::Table; done when the generated documentation communicates that difference.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.