get_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: materialization limits (64 MiB, 200k rows), pagination behavior, and an untrusted-data warning about returned content.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key invocation constraint, limits, and the safety note. No 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?

No output schema, so the description must carry return-value context; it covers pagination, materialization caps, and data trust, which is useful. However, with 7 of 8 parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks enough to invoke correctly beyond the basic key/path case.

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 only 13% (only uid documented), and 8 parameters exist. The description explains the key/path mutual-exclusion constraint but says nothing about sort, limit, offset, search, or descending, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 concrete verb (preview) and resource (table, joined table, partitioned table) via Open Train, so an agent knows the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_history or download_artifact_file, but the resource is distinctive enough to be identifiable.

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?

"Provide exactly one summary key or stored path" gives a real invocation constraint, but there is no guidance on when to pick get_table over siblings such as get_history, list_files, or download_file. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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