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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: results are bounded, pagination uses an opaque cursor, and the tool never accepts SQL or a tenant ID. That scope/security disclosure is real value beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is thin on filter/operator semantics and cursor usage, leaving gaps an agent would need filled by guesswork.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It names the concepts for columns, filters, sort, limit, and cursor, which maps to most parameters, but provides no format or syntax detail (allowed operators, filter value shapes, cursor reuse). It partially compensates without fully covering the gap.

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: 'Read bounded rows from one permitted table.' The enumerated capabilities (columns, filters, sorting, limit, cursor) and the note that it returns rows rather than aggregates implicitly distinguish it from aggregate_table. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., aggregate_table, describe_table). 'One permitted table' faintly implies a single-table scope constraint, but the agent is left to infer routing among siblings.

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