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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'authorized' qualifier, signaling a permission requirement, but does not say what happens on an unauthorized or nonexistent table, nor describe the return shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the specific metadata returned. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately names what is returned (types, partition/clustering keys), which partly substitutes for an output schema. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves the keyspace argument and error/permission behavior unexplained.

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 carries the full burden for the two required parameters. It mentions 'table' only implicitly by naming the resource and says nothing about 'keyspace' or the identifier format/pattern required by the schema, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('table'), and specifies exactly what is retrieved: column types and partition/clustering keys. This is clearly distinguishable in substance from list_tables and read_partition, but the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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 contextual hint is 'for an authorized table,' which implies a permission precondition but gives no when-to-use guidance and no contrast with list_tables or read_partition. An agent must infer whether to call this before reading data or partitions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are restricted to operator-authorized tables, so absence of a table is meaningful — but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the important constraint (authorized tables only) is front-loaded rather than buried. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main behavioral caveat but leaves the return contract undefined and no output schema exists to fill the gap — the agent cannot tell whether it receives names, full metadata, or a paginated envelope. No mention of empty-result or authorization-failure behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter schema is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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 verb and resource ("List ... tables") plus a meaningful scope qualifier ("explicitly authorized by the operator"). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings describe_table or read_partition, though the list/describe/read distinction is inferable from their names.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to call list_tables first or go straight to describe_table, or whether the authorization filter means it will silently omit tables the agent may be looking for.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a prompt-injection warning that database values are untrusted data, plus the constraint that no arbitrary CQL or filtering is accepted. It omits pagination/limit behavior and the error mode when a partial key is supplied.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: the operation and its access constraint are front-loaded, followed by the injection warning and the query restriction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 5-parameter, nested-object read tool with 0% schema coverage, it should say something about limit/pagination and how the partition object is matched; those gaps leave the definition only minimally adequate.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at 'columns' and 'partition' and says nothing about limit (default 20, max 100), keyspace, or table. The nested partition object's key/value shape is likewise left to the schema, leaving most of the five parameters without semantic elaboration.

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 verb (read) and resource (selected columns / partition) and pins down the access pattern ('using the full partition key'), which separates it cleanly from the schema-introspection siblings list_tables and describe_table. It never names those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'full partition key' requirement and 'No arbitrary CQL or filtering' constraint imply the usage precondition (you must already know the partition key) and exclude ad-hoc querying. However, there is no explicit when-to-use routing against the sibling tools or statement of what to do when the partition key is unknown.

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