workiva_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get row properties' with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, return format, pagination, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first line, and the parameter explanation is minimal and clear. There is no wasted text; 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, in the context of many sibling tools, the description does not clarify what 'row properties' specifically means or how it differs from alternatives like get_table_properties or get_table_columns. It is adequate but has gaps in contextual differentiation.

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?

The schema has no description for the parameter (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args section explaining 'table_id: The table UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's type/title. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing the agent with the required semantic context.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('row properties for a table'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_table_properties or get_table_columns because it targets rows specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The wording is specific enough for an agent to understand the primary function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection among the many sibling table-related tools.

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