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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavior: per-call and per-cell truncation limits, the full-length marker and cells_cut field, the one-row-at-a-time escape hatch for cut cells, the fact that an oversized row stays cut, and a prompt-injection caveat that row values are customer data rather than instructions. It also notes the tool is free.

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?

Front-loads the paging limits and truncation rules, and every sentence carries a distinct fact (limits, truncation, full_text, paging, alternative, safety). It is dense and slightly run-on, and the trailing 'Free.' fragment plus the next_cursor/cursor naming slip cost it a point.

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 return-value burden alone and does it: cells_cut, truncation markers, next_cursor, and the fallback to export_list are all explained. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly on the first try is missing.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates for most of it: limit is described as 'up to 200 per call', columns as an optional subset, full_text as the uncut single-row mode paired with row, and cursor as the paging token. One weakness: it refers to 'next_cursor' while the actual parameter is named 'cursor', a naming mismatch that could briefly confuse an agent.

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 specific verb and resource ('Page through a list's rows') plus the scoping limits (200 rows, ~100,000 chars, optional column subset). It is clearly distinguishable from export_list and get_run_rows, which the description and sibling list make explicit.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use cursor/next_cursor to paginate, call again with full_text: true plus a row number to read a cut cell, and use export_list when you need the whole list (especially when a row exceeds 100,000 characters). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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