Read Access saved query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes further by explaining the slicing behavior (offset/max_chars), the next_offset continuation pointer, and that content_token should be compared across pages to detect database changes.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage before the pagination details. No filler, though the content_token/pagination sentences are dense and slightly crammed together.

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?

With an output schema present, return values largely need no explanation, yet the description still covers the pagination contract (next_offset, content_token) that an agent needs to page correctly. Complete for a read tool; only the character-slice edge cases are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that offset/max_chars read SQL in character slices and that content_token describes the whole SQL rather than a page. It also documents next_offset, which the input schema does not contain.

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 and resource ('Reads the SQL of one saved query in an Access database') and scopes it with 'Access files only', which separates it from the similarly named xlide_read_query / xlide_list_queries siblings. An agent can pick it out without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after xlide_access_catalog when a query's SQL was previewed', naming the preceding tool and the triggering condition. It does not name an alternative to avoid or a when-not case, but the file-type constraint bounds it well.

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