get_table_preview

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, safe, and idempotent. The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint (n<=1000) and clarifies that only leading rows via a SELECT projection are returned. This is meaningful extra context without contradicting the annotations.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with the core action front-loaded and a compact parenthetical that defines the SQL behavior and maximum limit. No redundant wording.

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?

For a low-complexity preview tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key operational detail (row cap) and object. It lacks only minor context such as unordered/arbitrary result ordering or explicit guidance to use 'query' for full SQL.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining table_name's role and the limit constraint (n<=1000). However, the required db_name parameter is not described, leaving the agent to infer it from the parameter name alone.

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 names a specific operation ('Preview the first rows of a table') and specifies its mechanism ('SELECT * ... LIMIT n'). This clearly identifies the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with the 'query' sibling.

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 context is implied by 'Preview' — an agent can infer this is for a quick read-only peek at table data. It does not state when to prefer 'query' or other siblings, nor give exclusions, so guidance remains implicit.

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