List records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool supports various query features (view, formula, fields, sorting, pagination), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose details like default page size, max records, or response shape. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence uses 11 words and communicates the core purpose plus key capabilities. There is no fluff or repetition; 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?

Despite having an output schema and good annotations, the tool is complex with 9 parameters and pagination. The one-line description does not cover usage scenarios, parameter relationships, or edge cases (e.g., how maxRecords interacts with pageSize, or how view affects formula evaluation). The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent on this non-trivial query tool.

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. It names high-level parameter categories (view, formula, fields, sorting, pagination) but does not explain their syntax, interplay, or constraints (e.g., filterByFormula uses Airtable formula language, offset for pagination). This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool with no param descriptions in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' with the resource 'records', and enumerates distinct capabilities (view, formula, fields, sorting, pagination). This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_record, which presumably fetches a single record, and from create/update/delete tools.

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 description implies use for listing multiple records with filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_record or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and feature list.

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