find_rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'read-only', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the limit parameter's default cap of 200 rows, which contradicts the implication of 'every row', nor does it address pagination, potential performance impacts, or result set size. The information is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and condition, and the read-only note is useful. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and fails to clarify the limit behavior relative to the 'every row' claim. Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 3 required) and the existence of sibling tools, the description is adequate but not fully complete for correct invocation in all scenarios.

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 all parameters, including the limit, table, column, value, and columns fields. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('every row'), and the condition ('where column = value'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_row (single row) and list_tables (table listing), even without naming 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_row or list_tables. It only states the action and read-only nature, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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