result_table

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: nothing is exported to file, and rows beyond limit (capped by MIDAS_MAX_ROWS) are counted rather than returned. That truncation-and-count behavior is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs before trusting the output.

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 leading sentence front-loads purpose and the endpoint, then parameters are addressed in order with no filler. The table_type enumeration is long and partly redundant with the list_result_tables pointer, but each example conveys real domain meaning rather than restating the schema.

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?

For a six-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the discovery path, parameter formats, and row-cap behavior, which is most of what is needed to call it correctly. The unmentioned product parameter and the absence of any note on return shape are the remaining gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for table_type (named examples), load_cases (suffix format with a concrete example), components (column names), keys (node/element ids), and limit (capped by MIDAS_MAX_ROWS). The required 'product' parameter (gen/civil enum) is never mentioned, leaving one documented-only-by-enum 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource — retrieve one result table from the open model — and disambiguates from list_result_tables by noting it returns data rather than a catalog. It stops short of contrasting with siblings like show_result or read_table, which an agent could confuse it with.

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?

It gives clear routing context: table_type comes from list_result_tables, and the model's load cases are found via read_table("STLD"), which tells the agent how to prepare a call. It does not state when to prefer show_result or capture_view instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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