get_fre_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful framing that this is the generic fallback path, but says nothing about the max_rows cap (50000), pagination/truncation behavior, or cost of wide queries — the traits that actually matter for a broad table-read tool.

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 what the tool does, then the routing hint. No filler. The second sentence is a fragment but reads cleanly and earns its place by flagging the fallback role.

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 an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a 7-parameter generic query tool it omits any note on the row cap, version semantics ('first'/'last'/'all'), or which curated helpers to prefer — gaps the structured fields don't fill.

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 'table', 'cd_cvm', 'columns', 'version', 'first_year', 'last_year' and 'max_rows' are all self-documenting; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of company/year filtering adds a light framing but no semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read rows from one FRE table') and names the two filter dimensions (company and year). It positions itself against curated helpers but does not name any of them (get_financial_statements, get_shareholders, etc.), so sibling differentiation is directional rather than concrete.

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 'prefer the curated helpers when they fit' implies a when-to-use rule, but never names those helpers or states the conditions under which they 'fit'. An agent must infer both the alternatives and the selection criteria from the sibling list.

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