sample_table

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the tool is read-only, and the description adds that it returns actual row values, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as row ordering, sampling method, or performance implications on large tables. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource ('table or view') and the action ('a few rows') before the purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has four parameters, one required, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the core purpose. It does not explain the effect of the 'columns' parameter, the 'connection' parameter, or the format of the returned rows. For an agent to use it correctly, more detail is needed.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It clarifies 'rows' as 'a few rows' and 'table' as 'table or view', but it does not explain 'columns' (whether it filters or selects columns) or 'connection' at all. Given the zero coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the tool returns a few rows of a table or view to inspect actual values, which clearly identifies the resource and intent. It lacks an explicit verb like 'sample' or 'retrieve', and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like describe_table or profile_table, but the purpose is evident.

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 purpose ('to see what the values actually look like') implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. Sibling tools such as describe_table and profile_table are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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