Extract compact table rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'bounded' and 'safe HTTP(S) links' as behavioral details, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'safe' means or how bounding is applied, so it doesn't fully leverage the opportunity.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb. It's concise and easy to scan. However, it is almost too terse—it omits critical details, so while the structure is good, the content is insufficient, keeping it from a 5.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description is far from complete: it doesn't explain return format, pagination, how matching works, what 'safe links' means, or any constraints. An agent would need to guess or look elsewhere for essential details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It provides no information about what 'query', 'max_rows', 'target_id', 'max_tables', or 'max_columns' mean or how they control behavior. The description is entirely silent on parameter semantics, making it impossible for an agent to know how to set them correctly.

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 states a clear action ('Return bounded matching table rows and safe HTTP(S) links') and resource (table rows and links), and distinguishes this tool from a full snapshot. However, it doesn't name a specific sibling or explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'capture' or 'observe', so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without a full snapshot' implies a scenario where a lighter extraction is preferred over a complete page capture, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any sibling tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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