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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the return format (JSON:API 'row' objects with {repr, val} pairs mapped from column names) and mentioning support for paging and filtering. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence directly stating the purpose and the second adding return format details and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters all documented in the schema, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the return format and prerequisite usage. It is complete for a read-only, filtered-list tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described (e.g., 'q' as full-text filter, 'page' and 'per_page' for paging, 'resource_id' as numeric id). The description paraphrases these details and provides a usage example, but adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads row-level data from a tabular resource, specifying the required 'tabular_data' relationship. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_resources' by indicating that one must use that tool first to find the resource id.

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 explicitly instructs users to call 'list_resources' first to obtain a valid 'resource_id', and notes that the tool supports paging and full-text filtering via the 'q' parameter. While it does not list alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use the tool, the prerequisite is clearly stated.

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