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

Explains behavior the annotations cannot: the continuation is single-use, tenant-bound, pinned to the original route/query shape/page size/snapshot, and the call may persist the next page's continuation. This also reconciles the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint=false annotations, since consuming a single-use token mutates server-side pagination state.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints and failure remediation. The trailing paragraph ('Consumes the single-use continuation and may persist the next page's continuation') restates the opening sentence and adds little, slightly diluting the otherwise tight structure.

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 exists, and the description does explain that a next-page continuation is produced, which is what an agent needs to chain calls. However, 'may persist the next page's continuation' is ambiguous about who persists and how the continuation is returned, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It fully characterizes the required 'continuation' (opaque, tenant-bound, from the prior page, single-use) and adds a relevant negative constraint on min_as_of, but says nothing about the optional connection_context parameter.

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 and resource ('Continue one Agent Method insight read') plus the exact input it consumes ('the opaque tenant-bound continuation returned by the prior page'). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling that starts the read without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions and exclusions: use only with a continuation from the prior page, do not pass or synthesize min_as_of, and on snapshot_expired or replay rejection restart the identical page-1 request serially. It never names the page-1 sibling tool explicitly, so the alternative is only implied.

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