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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact return shape, keyset pagination behavior, API-key requirement, quota impact per row, and how filters behave—far more transparency than the schema alone provides.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: return contract, pagination walk, default first-page behavior, filter syntax, auth, and quota. The most important operational detail—how to page through all rows—is placed early, and no redundant filler is present.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly: response format, pagination loop, filter construction, auth, and cost implications. Minor gaps like discovering specific table names are covered by sibling tools such as list_tables and describe_table.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates well by explaining filters and from_id in detail, including an example of field__op syntax. It does not explain the limit parameter's effect, but that parameter is relatively self-evident from its schema and the returned response.

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 operation—'Query any table'—and defines the resource via league and table parameters. It also differentiates from siblings like list_tables and describe_table by focusing on data retrieval rather than metadata or record-level lookup.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: how to paginate with from_id, how to interpret next_from_id, and what happens when from_id is omitted. It stops short of naming alternative tools for single-record or specialized queries, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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