pvsyst_read_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at paging ('bounded page') and at the existence of a batch/UserHourly folder, but says nothing about what 'bounded' enforces, default page size, whether reads are side-effect free, or how missing CSVs or unknown columns are handled.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope tag front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information that this parameter-heavy tool actually needs.

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?

Five parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema leave the description far too thin: the required csv_name and the columns selector are wholly unexplained, and the return shape is undocumented. 'Bounded page' gestures at pagination but does not make the tool safely callable without guesswork.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions csv_name (required), folder, limit, offset, or the columns parameter whose default 'E_Grid,PR' is a non-obvious, domain-specific column list that an agent would benefit from having explained.

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 (a bounded page of rows from Results or batch UserHourly CSVs), which is more concrete than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as pvsyst_read_results, pvsyst_read_batch_results, or pvsyst_inspect_weather_csv, so an agent must guess which reader to pick.

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 names the two source folders as scope but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no condition for choosing this over pvsyst_read_results or pvsyst_read_batch_results, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the bracketed '[Results]' tag and the phrase 'batch UserHourly CSVs'.

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