Datasets List Columns For Table

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them: it discloses that pagination is followed automatically to the last page and that nextPageToken is always null because every page is read. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior for an invalid tableId.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with pagination disclosure second. The reStructuredText ``entries`` markup is noise an agent doesn't need, but overall there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (auto-pagination flattening results). Return shape need not be restated because an output schema exists; only the meaning of tableId's source is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (table_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of clarifying it. It does name 'tableId' but adds no format, source, or example for the value, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List columns for a warehouse table by its tableId.' This separates it from the many other list_* siblings by naming the resource (warehouse table columns). It never names the closest alternative (e.g. datasets_list_data_model_columns or elements_get_element_columns), so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when to use it (you have a tableId and want its columns) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and no prerequisites such as required scopes or how a tableId is obtained. No alternative tool is mentioned despite several column-listing siblings existing.

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