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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context that results are paginated and scoped to an owned project, but says nothing about defaults, page-size ceilings, ordering when unspecified, or error behavior for unknown columns.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the return value and scoped by project, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. But for a six-parameter tool with nested filter objects and low schema coverage, the description is too thin on parameter and usage context to be fully self-sufficient.

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 33%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not: it mentions filters and ordering only generically. Page, pageSize, and the orderBy sub-fields have no prose anywhere, and the filter semantics an agent needs are carried entirely by the nested schema descriptions.

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 ('Returns paginated extracted rows from a table') plus scope ('in an owned project') and the two modulating capabilities (filters, ordering). It is clear and non-tautological, though it never names or contrasts a sibling such as tables.list.

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?

Offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent gets no signal on when rows.search is the right call versus tables.list or the documents tools; the project-ownership precondition is left entirely to the schema.

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