Read a database table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the compact-vs-full return mode, and the System special case where 'entries' holds a single object. It does not mention failure behavior for an invalid table name or whether reads are cached, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the return-shape summary before the table enumeration. The final sentence about System is somewhat convoluted and slightly overlong, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return shapes (`count`, `entries`, `value`) is essential and is done. Valid table values, the single-entry mode, and the field-restriction mode are all covered; only error/edge-case behavior for an unknown table is absent.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the biggest gap: the `table` parameter has no description or enum in the schema, yet the description enumerates all valid table names. The `id` semantics ('one entry in full') are also restated and reinforced, though `fields` is not elaborated beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read data/<table>.json') and immediately names the exact file convention. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings patch_database_entry and create_database_entry, and the enumeration of covered tables pins down the scope precisely.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only framing and the table list, so an agent can infer this is the lookup tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as find_events or project_info, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion.

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