query_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels at this by: 1) Warning about the default 5-item limit to protect context window, 2) Explaining that the full query executes to get total count despite the limit, 3) Providing extensive OData filter examples and supported operators, 4) Clarifying this is a query operation (not mutation). This goes well beyond what the input schema provides about behavioral characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information (warning and core purpose). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance, examples, or operational details. The only minor issue is the extensive OData examples could be slightly condensed, but they serve an important educational purpose for this query tool.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It covers the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints (limit warning), parameter usage (extensive filter examples), and distinguishes from siblings. The only gap is lack of information about return format or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by: 1) Providing concrete OData filter examples with syntax, 2) Listing all supported operators with explanations, 3) Clarifying the 'limit' parameter's purpose and default behavior. However, it doesn't explain the 'select' parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already states, keeping it from a perfect score.

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's purpose: 'Query data from an Azure Storage Table with optional filters.' This is a specific verb ('query') + resource ('Azure Storage Table') combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_table_schema' (schema retrieval) and 'list_tables' (table enumeration). The description establishes this as a data querying tool with filtering capabilities.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for querying table data with OData filters. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on data retrieval rather than schema or table listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives beyond the sibling names. The warning about the default limit provides operational guidance but not comparative usage advice.

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