Browse table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'SELECT TOP N *' implies read-only, 'Max 200 rows' imposes a limit, and 'no filtering' sets expectations. However, it doesn't detail edge cases like missing tables or exact return shape, but for a simple preview tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides constraints and differentiation without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple nature of the tool (preview rows), the description covers the key behavioral constraints (max 200 rows, no filtering) and provides a pointer for filtered needs. The schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema exists, so nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context that the limit is used as TOP N, but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the limit (default 50, max 200) and table/schema names.

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?

Description states the exact action: 'Preview rows from a table (SELECT TOP N *)' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'no filtering' and referencing query_table, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Directly states when to use the alternative: 'use query_table for filtered results.' This clearly delineates when this tool is appropriate (unfiltered previews) and when to choose a sibling for filtering.

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