get_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description only adds that returned table text is 'paper data', a vague hint about content, and says nothing about size, page/provenance, or failure behavior on an invalid id.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence ('Table text is paper data') is terse to the point of being ambiguous, slightly reducing clarity.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are mostly present: what it fetches and where the id comes from. The lack of any sense of the return shape (rows, cells, caption) or payload size leaves a modest gap an agent would want filled.

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 one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the schema says only that table_id is an integer. The description does compensate meaningfully by stating the id originates from search_tables, establishing the provenance chain. It does not state whether the id is workspace-scoped, a table's ordinal within a paper, or what happens with an unknown id.

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 action and resource: retrieve one full table by table_id. It also names the sibling (search_tables) that produces the identifier, which helps distinguish it from list/search tools, though it doesn't contrast with get_passage explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(from `search_tables`)' implies the prerequisite workflow (search first, then fetch by id), which is useful routing. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_passage or the paper tool, and no explicit exclusions.

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