table_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the output format (markdown). It says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication/scope needs, error behavior when the table isn't found, or size/pagination limits for large tables.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with zero filler, which is good, but at six words it is undersized for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, and the phrase "one page table" is awkward and easy to misparse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is too thin to fully inform an agent about scoping, table selection, or failure modes. Only the return format is covered.

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 the schema already explains url, site, and that table accepts an index or heading. The description adds no extra meaning to those parameters; the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

"Read one page table as markdown" gives a specific verb (read), resource (a table on a page), and return format (markdown), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings table_update and table_add_row. It doesn't explicitly contrast with page_get or clarify whether "one page table" means a single table per page, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer on its own that this is for extracting tabular data from a page rather than fetching the whole page with page_get.

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