get_reader

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only that it 'wraps NBAPI GetReader,' an implementation detail that does not help invocation, and says nothing about not-found/error behavior or what happens with an unknown key.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front. The parenthetical wrapper note is the only arguably non-earning clause, but the overall size is efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the essentials are covered. With no output schema, however, the description does not indicate what 'details' are returned (credential format, location, status), leaving the return shape unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents READERKEY as required and unique. The description repeats the parameter name but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb (returns details) plus resource (a single reader) keyed by READERKEY. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_readers, but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a single reader' suggests this is the per-item companion to get_readers, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named.

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