table_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the output structure (rows with value, review status, violations) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose edge cases like what happens for empty tables, pagination, or error behavior. The 'filled' qualifier is vague, and there is no mention of rate limits or authentication. This is borderline sufficient but lacks needed detail.

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, efficiently worded sentence. It front-loads the primary action and immediately describes the output shape. There is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return types. However, the description fails to explain the likely important 'filled' condition, does not mention how `limit` or `only_flagged` affect results (though these are in the schema), and provides no usage context or behavioral expectations. It is adequate for a simple read, but not comprehensive.

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 75% (limit lacks a description), and the tool description adds no extra parameter information. The schema already describes `table`, `columns`, and `only_flagged`. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide additional context, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a filled table'), and specifies the output structure (each cell's value, review status, and violations). It is clear enough to distinguish from table_describe (which likely describes schema), but it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it does not fully differentiate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of table_describe for schema, cell_evidence for individual evidence, or any other conditional. The description assumes the agent knows when to call it, which is not reliable.

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