query_csv_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the parameters and return format (JSON with columns, row_count, rows), adding default max_rows. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, file existence requirements, or performance implications. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clear parameter list, and a return format note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's moderate complexity (reading CSV with optional filtering), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. With an output schema present, the return explanation suffices. However, it does not state assumptions like file_path must exist or behavior on missing columns. Mostly complete but misses minor contextual details.

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. It explains file_path (path to CSV), columns (comma-separated, all if empty), and max_rows (default 1000). This adds meaning beyond the schema's field names and types, but the explanations are minimal. Sufficient for basic understanding, not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read and query' and the resource 'CSV result file', which precisely conveys the tool's function. It differentiates well from sibling query tools like query_aer_results and query_evt_results by specifying the file type.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when it is appropriate, exclusions, or mention of related tools. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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