queryTable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context about filter passthrough to BaseQL and the case-sensitivity nuance ("Exact matches are case-sensitive unless you use advanced operators in _filter"). However, it does not disclose the response format or whether pagination metadata is returned, and the read-only safety profile is only implied by the verb "Query".

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 three efficient sentences: purpose, usage positioning, and filter/case-sensitivity caveat. It is front-loaded with the core operation and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The input schema richly covers all parameters, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (records shape, pagination metadata, total counts). It does not. Additionally, the sibling "query" is ambiguous and the description never clarifies when one would use "query" instead of "queryTable".

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% and each of the 6 parameters has a detailed description. The description adds only marginal value for filter (passthrough note and the "unless advanced operators" caveat) while the schema already documents operators, examples, and case-sensitivity more thoroughly. No new meaning is added for tableName, sort, limit, offset, or fields.

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 a specific verb+resource+scope: "Query data from a table with filtering, sorting, and pagination." The phrase "Use this for most data retrieval needs" positions it against siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling "query", leaving some ambiguity.

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?

"Use this for most data retrieval needs" gives clear context that this is the go-to retrieval tool. It does not name exclusions or explicitly direct agents to alternatives like searchTable or getFieldOptions for specialized cases, but the guidance is reasonably clear.

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