read_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates a read-only SELECT action, but it does not go beyond the name/verb to note any constraints, default limits, edge cases, or side-effect-free guarantees beyond the obvious read semantics.

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 that is front-loaded with the action 'Read/Select records from a table' and efficiently enumerates optional features without extra filler. Every clause adds relevant information.

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?

Given 8 parameters and existing output schema plus 100% schema coverage, the description covers the main capabilities but omits any mention of schema_name or default behaviors such as limit/offset defaults. It is adequate but not comprehensive enough to earn a higher score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions column selection, filtering, ordering, and pagination, which align with several parameters, but it does not add details beyond what the input schema already provides for each parameter.

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 'Read/Select records from a table' with specific verb and resource, and enumerates capabilities such as column selection, WHERE filtering, ordering, and pagination. This differentiates it from siblings like read_query and execute_sql by scoping to table-based SELECT operations.

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 provides a clear context for use: it is the tool to read records from a table using structured filters and options. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing distinguishes it from free-form SQL tools like read_query and execute_sql.

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