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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: it discloses pagination mechanics (cursor takes the previous page's nextCursor, which is null on the last page) and that rows come back in list order with cells. It doesn't mention any rate limits or approximate result size, keeping it a 4.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, how pagination works, and when to prefer the sibling. Front-loaded and every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: content (rows with cells), ordering, and pagination termination. The main remaining gap is return shape detail, which is partially implied but not stated.

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 33%, so the description has to carry the load and it does for cursor, explaining exactly what value to pass and how end-of-list is signalled. limit already has a schema default/max, and tableId is self-evident from the tool name, so the coverage gap is largely mitigated.

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 ("List rows in a workspace table"), adds useful scope detail ("with cells, in list order"), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_workspace_table so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_workspace_table) and the condition that favors it (small tables where the full shape matters), which is a genuine routing hint. It stops short of a full when/when-not matrix (e.g., no guidance on very large tables or on bulk_create_workspace_rows as the counterpart), so not a 5.

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