query_table

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds value by enumerating supported filter operators (eq/neq, comparisons, string matching, blank checks, in/not_in). It does not disclose return format or edge-case behavior, but annotation coverage lowers the bar; some behavioral context is added.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary operations. No filler; every word adds information.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the core query operations. It omits parameter semantics for row_mode, header_row, sheet/table selection, infer_schema, and any return-value description, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'filters' parameter by listing allowed operators and implies select/sort_by/limit via 'filter, project, sort, limit'. However, row_mode, header_row, sheet_name, table_name, infer_schema, and sort_desc remain undocumented, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's function (filter, project, sort, limit) on worksheet/table data, with specific filter operator detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like read_excel_as_table or quick_read, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a query use case but never states exclusions or recommends simpler tools for basic reads. Siblings like quick_read and read_excel_as_table would benefit from a comparison.

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