Get Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating output formats already present in the schema; it does not mention version semantics, error conditions, or any additional side effects.

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 a single, economical sentence that front-loads the primary action and mentions supported formats. It wastes no words, but its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter context; it is concise but not fully informative.

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 four parameters (two required) and no parameter descriptions, the tool is under-specified for correct invocation. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what a 'table' is relative to 'records' or how 'version' affects the result, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning or relationship of the four parameters. The terms 'identifier' and 'table' are ambiguous—does 'identifier' identify a record or a table? The description offers no compensation for this ambiguity, leaving invocation error-prone.

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 states a clear action ('Fetch') and resource ('one HEPData table'), and enumerates output formats. It is specific enough to distinguish from search/list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_record or describe_table, which could overlap in purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_record, describe_table, or list_tables. There are no selection criteria, prerequisites, or disambiguation cues, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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