tabular_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a meaningful scalability caveat about include_text and large documents, which helps an agent avoid an expensive call. It does not disclose pagination, output format, or other operational details, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 short, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second part for a necessary caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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?

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important context missing: what 'fields with dimensions' returns, how the range parameters interact, and what the response looks like. The caveat is useful but does not make the definition complete.

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, but it only explains include_text and loosely refers to a 'cells range' (row/column bounds). max_rows, max_columns, session_id, and the boundary semantics of row_start/end and column_start/end remain unexplained.

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 ('List') and resource ('tabular document fields with dimensions'), and adds the optional cells-range behavior. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool (e.g., tabular_document_text or tabular_document_state_display) to differentiate against.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: include_text is only for small/partial ranges, and large documents should be saved/exported and analyzed as a file. This is contextually clear, though the alternative is described as a workflow rather than naming the specific sibling tool (tabular_document_save).

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