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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact return shape (columns + rows + cells) and warning about load for large tables, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the alternative. The column field enumeration is dense but informative; no sentence is wasted, though the run-on field list is slightly compressed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the returned structure (columns with their fields, plus rows and cells). It leaves row/cell field detail unspecified, but for a read-scoped tool it covers what an agent needs to decide and call correctly.

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 0% and the description never explains tableId. However, with a single self-evident parameter name and the schema carrying the type/required constraint, the cost is low, so baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a penalty.

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 (get_workspace_table) and defines the returned scope precisely: columns, rows, and cells, with the column field list (id/name/colType/options/required/order). This clearly separates it from list_workspace_rows, which the description explicitly names.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: for very large tables, prefer paging through list_workspace_rows. This is a real when-to-use-alternative signal, though it does not state the positive case (e.g. 'use when you need the complete table in one call') beyond implication.

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