sample_rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that output is a small sample ('first few rows') rather than full data, which is useful, but says nothing about the size cap, failure modes, or behavior on empty tables.

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 the return value front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to carry the parameter burden.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. The description is adequate for a preview tool, with the only real gap being the undocumented limit semantics.

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% for two parameters. The description only implicitly references 'table' and gestures at 'first few rows' for 'limit', without clarifying that limit controls row count, its default of 5, or valid ranges.

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 ('Return') and resource ('first few rows of a table') with the intent ('show what its data looks like'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like run_query or describe_table, which could also produce row data.

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 phrase 'to show what its data looks like' implies a preview/inspection use case, which is a reasonable usage hint. But it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance versus run_query or describe_table, leaving routing to inference.

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