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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and an output schema exists, so the bar is low. The description adds useful content scope by naming the tip categories (growth maths, history-table patterns) that the annotation cannot convey, but it does not clarify whether this is static reference material or environment-derived documentation.

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 compact sentences with the primary content stated first and the filtering rule second. The parenthetical tip list is slightly dense but each item earns its place as a signal of what reference material is available.

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?

With a documented single optional parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint, an agent has nearly everything needed to invoke this correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on when in a workflow to consult examples versus calling run_sql directly.

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 single parameter is already documented with the example value "sound_history" and the omit-for-all behavior. The description's "Pass a table to get only its examples" restates the schema rather than adding syntax or semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names the resource concretely: worked examples pairing a question with runnable SQL, plus SQL tips on specific topics (growth maths, history-table patterns, sound_history days). It never explicitly contrasts itself with describe_table or run_sql, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the content is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

"Pass a table to get only its examples" covers filter usage, and "SQL that runs here" hints at consulting this before calling run_sql. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with for the agent's next call.

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