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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the note that extraction columns are included in the result, which is modest added context beyond annotations. No pagination, ordering, or scope-limit behavior is disclosed.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely restates the schema's own parameter description, which slightly weakens the claim that every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complexity is minimal: one optional string parameter, an output schema that defines the return shape, and annotations that cover safety semantics. Purpose plus the scoping condition for project_slug is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly without further description.

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 100% and the schema's project_slug description already spells out the same 'optional only when exactly one visible project' rule nearly verbatim. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for a single well-documented parameter.

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 (Lists) and resource (tables) scoped to an owned project, and adds what the result contains (extraction columns). This is unmistakably distinct from the write-oriented sibling tables.create and from the splitters.* family.

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?

The description gives a conditional rule for project_slug (required when multiple projects are visible), but this is a parameter condition rather than tool-selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rows.search or splitters.list, so usage is only implied by the verb.

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