direct_read_report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the key behavioral facts that no API request is made and no credits are consumed. This goes beyond the annotation and helps agents select the tool for cost-free local reads, though it does not cover edge-case behaviors like invalid paths.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action, object, and distinguishing benefit are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simple three-parameter shape, an output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential workflow: reading an existing report from a direct_report path without extra cost. Minor gaps such as explicit prerequisites and pagination parameter details are not severe.

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 must compensate, but it only explains the source of 'path' and vaguely suggests pagination via 'page by page'. The limit and offset parameters are not explicitly tied to pagination semantics, maximum values, or behavior when omitted beyond schema defaults.

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 ('Постранично прочитать' — read page by page) and a specific resource ('уже выгруженный отчёт по пути из direct_report'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling direct_report by stating it reads an already exported report without re-calling the API.

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: use this tool after a report has been exported via direct_report, when you want to read it without another API call or credit cost. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives beyond direct_report, but the intended workflow is clear.

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