get_sample_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real trait — only the *first* N rows, i.e. a truncated preview with no ordering guarantee — but it never confirms read-only safety, side effects, or any row ceiling beyond the server default.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted words. Sized appropriately for a simple preview tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers only the row-count behavior. It omits return shape, ordering determinism, and safety profile — minor but real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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%, so all three parameters (rows, table, schema) are already documented in the schema. The description's "first N rows" mildly reinforces the rows parameter but adds no format or default nuance beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Return the first N rows of a table as a quick data preview" gives a specific verb (return), resource (table rows), and the scope qualifier (first N, preview). It is clear, but it does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like run_query, count_rows, or describe_table.

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 phrase "quick data preview" implies the intended context (eyeballing data rather than querying or counting), but it never states when to prefer this over run_query or count_rows, nor any exclusions. Usage is left to inference.

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