Get Tables All

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 behavioral disclosure. It only lists return keys and does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how large the history payload might be.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the key value proposition ('in one call') and then concisely lists the returned keys. 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?

With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain parameters or return values in detail. It states what is aggregated and the top-level return keys. The main gap is the absence of any behavioral context for a no-annotation tool and the unexplained 'tables' in the tool name.

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 all parameters (lang, date_limit, article_name) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific contents returned (info, initial revision, latest revision, full history) and emphasizes consolidation into one call. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_article_info/initial/recent/history tools by listing those same components. However, it never states the resource type ('article' or 'tables'), and the tool name's 'tables' remains unexplained.

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 'in one call' implies the intended use case: retrieving all four pieces of data together rather than making separate calls. No explicit alternatives are named, and there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if only info or only history is needed).

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