Read normalized artifact / 读取归一化 artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'bounded' to describe the observables.csv scope, which is a data scope detail rather than a behavioral trait such as pagination, error behavior, or rate limits. It does not contradict 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. The bilingual repetition (Chinese and English) is slightly redundant for an AI agent but does not meaningfully harm clarity, so it earns a strong score rather than a perfect one.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could benefit from explicit guidance on ordering relative to normalize_local_result, but the 'generated by this service' phrase provides enough context for correct use.

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%, with both artifact_id and include_csv already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and names concrete resources ('metadata.json and bounded observables.csv') generated by this service. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like download_simulation_result or normalize_local_result, which concern different stages of the workflow.

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 gives clear context by stating these artifacts are 'generated by this service', implying use after normalization. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or exclude any alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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