Pages: read tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful non-annotation context: the macOS/Pages runtime dependency and the fact that formula and displayed text are both returned. It does not discuss behavior on documents with no tables, keeping it short of a 5.

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 return content, followed by the prerequisite and the alternative/sequencing hint. No filler and no redundancy with the title.

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 formatting, and it covers purpose, prerequisite, and sibling sequencing. Only edge behavior (empty documents, missing tables, error modes) is unspecified, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which already documents absolute or ~-prefixed paths. The description adds nothing about the path argument, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Every table in a .pages document') and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, size, per-cell value, shown text and formula. This is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like pages_set_table_cells.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Needs macOS + Pages') and an explicit sequencing rule: 'Use before pages_set_table_cells to see the tables, their names and cell references.' The agent knows both when to call it and which sibling it feeds into.

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