List rows

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description appropriately focuses on row structure and pagination behavior. It adds useful context about output fields such as `input`, `cells`, `state` values, `credits`, and `not_found_reason`, which is especially helpful because no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently packs row shape, state values, pagination, and filtering into a short passage. The opening 'list rows' is somewhat redundant with the tool name/title, and the dense enumeration of output fields is useful but slightly run-on.

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 read-only list operation with rich annotations and a fully described input schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the returned row structure and pagination, which are not covered by an output schema, though it could clarify edge cases like empty results or terminal cursor behavior.

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 documents `id`, `limit`, `cursor`, and `updated_since`. The description reinforces pagination by connecting `next_cursor` to `cursor` and clarifies `updated_since` as 'changes only', but adds only marginal meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing rows of a dataset in position order. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_datasets or get_dataset by focusing on row-level data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast them.

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 practical guidance on pagination (`limit` up to 1,000, `next_cursor` as `cursor`) and filtering via `updated_since` for changes only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dataset, export_dataset, or list_datasets.

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