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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it doesn't say the operation is read-only, what happens if selections are invalid, whether large results are truncated, or what the response looks like. Only the wire format of one parameter is explained.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of format detail that matters. Nothing is padded, though the brevity partly reflects missing content rather than discipline.

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, no annotations, and a required table parameter that is never described. For a data-retrieval tool with an untyped JSON-string parameter, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly or to predict what comes back.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'selections' is a JSON object mapping variable codes to arrays of values, which is genuinely useful, but the required 'table' parameter is left completely undefined (its format, where to obtain valid IDs).

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 verb ('Retrieve') and an object ('selected values'), but never says from what — the 'table' parameter and the tool name's subject are absent from the prose. An agent must infer that it pulls table data given a table identifier, which is a vague rather than a specific purpose statement.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_table_metadata or list_tables, no prerequisites, and no mention that metadata should be fetched first to learn valid variable codes. The agent gets no routing signal at all.

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