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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing pagination limits, the provenance guarantee that all numbers are AMT's own, and a prompt-injection warning about row text, labels, and file names. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by provenance and safety guidance. Nothing is redundant, though the injection warning is somewhat generic boilerplate for a read 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload (row text, category, confidence, page size). It is nearly complete for a read tool, missing only an explicit note on whether offset paging is the intended iteration pattern versus a cursor.

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 coverage is 50%: fill_id and model_id are described in the schema, but limit and offset are not. The description partially compensates by describing page-based reading capped at 200 rows, which conveys the semantics of those two undocumented parameters, but it never names or maps them explicitly.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (rows of a finished fill) and names exactly what is returned (category and confidence AMT gave each row). It implicitly separates itself from fill_status by qualifying the fill as 'finished', but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like sample_rows or fill_status.

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 implies the precondition that the fill must be finished and explains the paging model ('a page at a time, up to 200 rows'), which is real usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus fill_status, sample_rows, or model_report, and no alternatives are named.

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