get_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers: it states 'Read-only; nothing is written,' explains the cached/formula/both value semantics, and describes the return shape (table ref, column names, data rows, no header/totals row). It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read tool this is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter semantics, return behavior, and alternatives are all packed into a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

Given the 5-parameter input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main options, return behavior, and alternatives. The only notable omission is the meaning of the required 'path' parameter, and there is no explicit example, but overall an agent can invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains name, columns, values, and records clearly. The only gap is the 'path' parameter, which is required but never described; still, most parameters are given meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a table's data by its name.' It immediately clarifies case-insensitivity and then contrasts with related operations by naming query_range for paging and manage_table for advanced ops, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit routing guidance: use query_range with a {table} location to filter or page big tables, and use manage_table for advanced table operations. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative signals.

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