get_table_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination limits and filtering behavior (AND logic, case-insensitive contains), but does not disclose response format, error handling, or potential side effects, though the read-only nature is implied.

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?

The description is concise, uses front-loaded sentences to convey core purpose, and every sentence adds unique information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (nested filter object, no output schema), the description effectively covers pagination limits, operator details, and logical combination, leaving only response structure undocumented, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already details all parameters. The description adds value by explaining filter operators, case-insensitivity, and AND logic, and provides examples, which goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 the tool retrieves rows from a table with pagination and filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rows, delete_rows, or patch_rows which modify 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 description specifies when to use the tool (to read rows with pagination/filtering) and provides concrete limits (100 default, 500 max) and filtering operators, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives to siblings like get_table_columns.

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