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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the content shape (question + SQL that runs here) and the tip categories, plus the filter-vs-all behavior. It omits any note on output size or pagination, but an output schema exists to cover structure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the optional filtering instruction. The middle list of tip categories is dense but does real work in telling the agent what topics are covered. No wasted preamble.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape. It covers content, the filter, and its default, which is enough for a single-optional-param read tool. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to run_sql, which overlaps with the usage dimension.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter and the "omit for all" default, which the schema also documents, but supplies a concrete value example ("sound_history"). No semantics beyond the schema are added.

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 precisely: worked examples consisting of a question plus runnable SQL, along with SQL tips on named topics (growth maths, history tables, sound_history days, follows lookups). That is clearly distinct from run_sql, describe_table and list_tables, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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" documents the filtering behavior but never states when to reach for this tool instead of run_sql or describe_table. Usage is implied (learn patterns before querying) rather than guided, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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