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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds return-shape semantics the annotations cannot: null means blank, `origins` records provenance of unquoted values, `ai` reports AI-column progress, `versions` lists saved versions. It does not mention payload size or cost limits beyond the paging advice.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return contents and then operational advice; nothing is padded. The middle sentence is dense with field names but each earns its place as return documentation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so field-by-field (scope, columns/rules, summaries, rows, origins, ai, versions). Combined with fully documented params and read-only annotations, an agent can invoke this correctly without further information.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still earns a bump by tying offset/limit together into a paging strategy and pointing at `versions` as the source of the `version` value. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond that.

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?

"Read a table" states a specific verb and resource, and the sentence enumerates exactly what comes back (scope, columns with rules, summaries, rows), so the agent knows what it gets. It never names a sibling (list_tables, get_cell, export_table) to contrast against, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 closing sentence gives a real tactic for large tables (read summaries first, page with offset/limit), and the schema hints slug comes from list_tables. But there is no explicit when-not or routing to alternatives such as get_cell for a single value or export_table for bulk extraction.

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