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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by specifying GET semantics, pointing to external API docs, and requiring search-api first, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or expected response behavior beyond "Never changes data."

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 front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, followed by a compact example. It is appropriately sized, though "Never changes data" partly repeats what annotations already state.

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 generic API passthrough tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation prerequisites and safety but does not explain what the tool returns or how errors from dynamic endpoints should be interpreted. It points to the external API reference, which compensates somewhat, but an agent still lacks response-shape guidance.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description includes a concrete example showing how the url template and merged path/query params are composed: call-api-read({ url: "/table/{tableId}/view", params: { tableId: "tblXXX" } }). This adds practical usage guidance beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource: "Read data with a GET request to the Teable REST API," and it lists example resource types (views, collaborators, automations). It distinguishes itself from call-api-write via "Never changes data" and from search-api by naming the prerequisite workflow, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from specialized readers like get-records or get-fields.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: "Find the url template with search-api first," and defines the scope as "anything else search-api finds as a GET endpoint," which implies this is the generic fallback for GET endpoints. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the specialized sibling tools over this generic caller.

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