preview_data

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does indicate the tool is a bounded preview and contrasts it with export_data which writes to disk, implying it does not write. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects beyond the read-only nature, so full transparency is not achieved.

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 description is concise, with two sentences and a line break. It front-loads the core purpose and provides actionable guidance without waste.

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?

The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool has six parameters with no schema descriptions and no param explanations in the description. While the purpose and usage are clear, the missing parameter semantics leave a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level explanations. It only hints at the limit parameter indirectly with 'bounded preview,' but doesn't map any other parameters or provide usage examples. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: to inspect a query's shape and coverage before full export. It distinguishes itself from the sibling export_data by explicitly recommending export_data for writing the complete panel to disk.

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 explicitly says to use this before calling export_data, and provides a clear context: bounded preview for checking columns, coverage, and sample values. It also implies not to use it when you need the full result, which is handled by export_data.

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