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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world), the description adds real substance: 'authorized' signals permission gating, oversized pages return a complete authenticated JSON resource, and cursor results are invalidated by intervening data changes. That last point is a non-obvious operational trait an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence packs two distinct caveats, which is efficient though slightly terse for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

An output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, so the description needn't repeat those. However, with 9 parameters at 11% description coverage and nontrivial features (filter expressions, projection, total counts, cursor direction), key invocation details remain unspecified.

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 coverage is only 11% (just artifactId documented), so the description has to compensate. It maps capabilities to parameter groups (filters, sortBy/sortOrder, fields projection, after/before cursors), but leaves the filter value syntax, limit bounds, and includeTotal unexplained.

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+resource ('Read ... table rows') and enumerates the supported capabilities (filters, sort, projection, cursors). It is clearly the read side of the table_* sibling group (append/update/delete), though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus table_append_rows/artifact_get_content or when not to. The only conditional guidance is the caveat that changes between chunks require restarting, which is behavioral rather than a use-case rule.

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