lira_read_table

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: empty cells are returned as null, values follow LIRA's current units, large tables are paged via offset/limit, and the response reports the total row count. That pagination and null-handling context is exactly what an agent needs before calling.

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?

Every sentence carries information and the purpose is front-loaded, but the layout is choppy: a bare fragment opens the description and the 'numbers:' label reads like an unpolished bullet, with the filter syntax explained before the units convention it depends on.

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, return values needn't be explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the 'table' parameter undefined and omits the limit default, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 parameter burden and only partially does: it explains the 'numbers' selector syntax ('1-10 15'), the model default (active model), and the offset/limit paging intent. It never says what 'table' values are valid (presumably names from lira_list_input_tables) and does not mention the limit default of 200.

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 verb 'read' plus the resource 'input table' makes the operation identifiable, and the parenthetical about the default model clarifies scope. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like lira_read_loads or lira_list_input_tables, and the opening fragment is not a full sentence.

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 only usage hint is the parenthetical about the default model and a pointer to lira_model_summary for units. There is no guidance on when to choose this over lira_read_loads or lira_list_input_tables, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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