sampleRows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns 'actual rows' (versus schema/metadata), which is mildly useful context. It does not contradict annotations and does not add significant behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative guidance is in the second. 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the unexplained table parameter and the optional schema parameter, but the presence of an output schema and annotations covers return values and safety, making this only slightly incomplete.

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 only 50%: limit and connection are described, but table and schema are not. The description hints that the table must be 'known' but does not explain how to obtain or format table names, nor does it mention the optional schema parameter. This leaves required parameters under-documented and the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Preview a small number of actual rows from one known table or view.' It states the purpose (understanding data shape and example values) and explicitly distinguishes itself from describeTable, which is a sibling, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus describeTable: use this to preview actual row data, use describeTable for fields, types, and constraints without reading rows. This is an explicit when/when-not pairing with a named alternative.

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