getTableQuery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by stating the required scope ('tables:read') and marking it as '[READ-ONLY]', which clarifies safety and permission needs. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, response format, or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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, followed by essential details like the API endpoint and scope requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness by covering purpose, scope, and safety. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, which are important for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Looks up') and resource ('a table query for a Tulip Table by id'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTable' or 'listTableQueries', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage by specifying the required scope ('tables:read'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTable' or 'listTableQueries'. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent in selecting among similar tools.

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