read_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states the return shape ('JSON-serialisable columns + rows'), the cap on rows ('up to *count*'), and the exact behavior of the as_of option ('uses OPTION (FOR TIMESTAMP AS OF ...)'). It does not cover error cases or permission requirements, but for a read operation it gives solid behavioral context.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a focused args list. Every line adds a distinct piece of information, with the purpose front-loaded and 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?

All five parameters are described with semantics and defaults, the time-travel behavior is explained, and the return shape is stated. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return structure further. The tool is simple enough that no essential calling information is missing.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: workspace is 'Workspace name or GUID', item is 'Warehouse or SQL endpoint name or GUID', qualified_name includes an example 'dbo.sales', count gives range and default, and as_of explains ISO-8601 format and time-travel semantics. This goes well beyond the bare 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 precise verb and resource: 'Return up to *count* rows from a table as JSON-serialisable columns + rows.' This clearly identifies the operation as reading table data and distinguishes it from related siblings like read_view (views), count_table_rows (counting), and list_tables (listing).

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is clearly intended for reading row-level data from a table, and the as_of parameter describes when to use time-travel reads. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_view, list_tables, or execute_sql, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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