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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with destructiveHint=false, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds real behavioral detail beyond that: column-name constraints, the single-unique-key rule with STATE_CONFLICT behavior, and what strict mode rejects. It omits what happens on duplicate titles or revision/permission requirements.

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 purpose and schema constraints are front-loaded, and the usage rationale closes the description. The first sentence is dense with constraints, but every clause carries information.

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?

With 12 parameters at 92% coverage, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers the core creation semantics well enough. A note on duplicate-title behavior or workspace vs standalone constraints would make it complete.

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 92%, so the schema already carries nearly all parameter meaning, and the description's column-name and unique-key notes largely restate schema wording. The strict explanation is genuinely useful but is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a structured table with a typed schema') and clarifies that the title is optional. It doesn't name the closest sibling (table_create_from_csv), but the closing sentence ('rows are stored once, not copied per change') implicitly distinguishes a table from document-style artifacts.

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?

'Use a table for data that grows by adding records' gives a clear positive selection rule against document-like alternatives. There are no explicit when-not conditions or pointers to table_create_from_csv / bulk import, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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