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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the continuation is opaque, tenant-bound, single-use, pinned to the original route/query/page size/snapshot, and it specifies error recovery behavior.

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 concise sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the binding constraints, and the error-handling rule. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the continuation semantics, constraints, and failure handling. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but for a pagination-continuation tool the behavior is sufficiently implied by 'continue ... using the continuation returned by the prior page'.

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?

The input schema provides only name, type, and validation pattern, with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the continuation is opaque, tenant-bound, single-use, and must come from the prior page. It provides enough meaning for correct invocation.

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 the specific action (continue an insight read) and its resource (Agent Method insight read using the continuation from the prior page). It clearly distinguishes itself from the related starting tool insights_query_consistent by emphasizing pagination continuation.

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 explains when to use this tool: after receiving a continuation from a prior page. It also gives explicit guidance on what not to do (do not pass or synthesize min_as_of) and how to handle failures by restarting the page-1 request serially.

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